U.S. court revives human rights case versus Rio Tinto

25 10 2011

 

 

[cid:image001.jpg@01CC93BC.9BCF2380]<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=11becebve/EXP=1320788948/**http%3A/www.reuters.com/>By

Jonathan Stempel | Reuters – 1 hour 0 minutes ago

 

(Reuters) – A U.S. federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit seeking to hold Rio

Tinto Plc responsible for human rights violations and thousands of deaths linked to

a Papua New Guinea copper and gold mine it once ran.

 

A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed a lower

court’s dismissal of claims against the mining giant for genocide and war crimes,

while upholding the dismissal of claims for racial discrimination and crimes against

humanity.

 

“The complaint alleges purposeful conduct undertaken by Rio Tinto with the intent to

assist in the commission of violence, injury, and death, to the degree necessary to

keep its mines open,” Judge Mary Schroeder wrote.

 

Some dissenting judges protested against allowing a lawsuit to proceed in federal

courts brought by non-U.S. residents against a non-U.S. companies such as Rio Tinto,

which has corporate offices in London and in Melbourne, Australia.

 

The 6-5 decision on Tuesday revives an 11-year-old lawsuit on behalf of about 10,000

current and former residents of the South Pacific island Bougainville, where a late

1980s uprising led to the use of military force and many deaths.

 

Tony Shaffer, a Rio Tinto spokesman, said, “We intend to defend ourselves vigorously

against these improper claims.”

 

Rio Tinto is one of the world’s largest mining companies, with a market value

exceeding US$100 billion, Reuters data show.

 

The case is one of several in which non-U.S. residents seek to hold companies

responsible in U.S. courts for alleged human rights violations on foreign soil,

under a 1789 U.S. law known as the Alien Tort Statute.

 

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider in its current term the reach

of that statute, in a lawsuit accusing Royal Dutch Shell Plc of helping Nigeria

violently suppress protests in the 1990s.

 

A federal appeals court in New York had ruled that Shell was not liable under the

statute. It is unclear how the pendency of that case will affect the Rio Tinto

proceedings.

 

Steve Berman, a lawyer for the Rio Tinto plaintiffs, said: “My clients believe Rio

has been covering up its complicity in war crimes and genocide. We’re pleased to be

able to return to the district court and begin proving our case.”

 

“EXPENDABLE”

 

The Bougainville residents claimed that Rio Tinto’s Panguna mine operations polluted

the island and that the company forced native workers to live in “slave like”

conditions.

 

They also contended that after workers began to sabotage the mine in 1988, Rio Tinto

goaded the government into exacting retribution and conspired to impose a blockade

that resulted in the deaths of some 10,000 civilians by 1997.

 

Rio Tinto shut the mine in 1989.

 

Writing for the 9th Circuit, Schroeder said the complaint’s allegation that Rio

Tinto’s “worldwide modus operandi” was to treat indigenous non-Caucasians as

“expendable” justified restoring the genocide claim to the case.

 

She also said the allegation that Rio Tinto acted for its own private ends in

inducing Papua New Guinea’s military to murder civilians justified restoring the war

crimes claim.

 

The appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow in Los

Angeles for further proceedings.

 

In a dissent, Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote that the Alien Tort Statute gave the court no

authority to hear a case between the non-U.S. plaintiffs and Rio Tinto over non-U.S.

activity.

 

“The majority sees fit to brush past these limitations and give itself unlimited

authority to adjudicate suits between aliens for torts arising anywhere in the

world,” she wrote.

 

Another dissenting judge, Andrew Kleinfeld, wrote: “This case calls for judicial

humility. Instead, we arrogate to ourselves imperial authority over the whole

world.”

 

Berman is a partner at Hagens Berman in Seattle. Rio Tinto’s defence has been

handled by O’Melveny & Myers and, until recently, been overseen by Sri Srinivasan, a

partner who in August was appointed deputy U.S. solicitor general.

 

The case is Sarei et al v. Rio Tinto Plc et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,

No. 02-56256.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; additional reporting by Dan Levine in

San Francisco; editing by Dave Zimmerman and Andre Grenon)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-court-revives-human-rights-case-versus-rio-204844544.html

Advertisements

Actions

Information

One response

26 10 2011
Cynthia

I don’t think it is possible to punish Rio Tinto to the full extent that they deserve, nothing can make up for their destruction of Mother Earth and her people…but one can have hope….And pray for swift justice….your friends in Florida, USA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: