March 9th, 2012 Washington D.C. The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable is a coalition of 15 leading human rights organizations working to identify and promote robust frameworks for corporate accountability, strengthen current measures and defend existing laws, policies and legal precedents. We issue this statement expressing our disappointment and concern about the decision made by the Quebec Court ofAppeal on January 24 th , 2012 to overturn the lower court’s findings in the case against Anvil Mining Limited (“Anvil Mining”). In November of 2010, the Canadian Association Against Impunity (CAAI) filed a class action againstAnvil Miningfor its alleged involvement in a2004 massacrenear its mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Anvil Mining is inc orporated in Canada’s Northwest Territories, listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and operates from an office in Quebec; it also has offices in Australia, South Africa and the DRC. The company is accus ed of providing logistical support to the Congolese military to help them counter an attempt by a small armed rebel group to take over the town of Kilwa, a key port for Anvil Mining’s operations. Congolese military forces, sent to defeat the rebels, were implicated in the killing, rape and torture of civilians in Kilwa. More than 70 civilians were killed, including at least 28 who were summarily executed. When the case was before t he Quebec Superior Court, Judge Benoit Emery ruled that no viable channels existed for the Congolese victims and families to seek justice, and that although Anvil Mining ’s head office at the time of t he incident was in Perth, Australia, sufficient links existed to establish jurisdiction in Quebec. The Quebec Court of Appeal, in overturning this decision , found that the requirements ofthe Quebec Civil Code (Art. 3148(2)) had not been met with respect to jurisdiction. This finding contradicted those in the lower court, which held that t he principal, if not sole activity, of Anvil Mining’s Quebec office was the management of the C ongo mine, that the role of its Montreal-based Vice President of Corporate Affairs was necessarily linked to the exploitation of the mine in the DRC, and that no other viable forum for the survivors of the Kilwa Massacre to seek justice existed.
The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable is a coalition of 15 leading human rights
organizations working to identify and promote robust frameworks for corporate accountability,
strengthen current measures and defend existing laws, policies and legal precedents. We issue this
statement expressing our disappointment and concern about the decision made by the Quebec Court of
Appeal on January 24th
, 2012 to overturn the lower court’s findings in the case against Anvil Mining
Limited (“Anvil Mining”).
In November of 2010, the Canadian Association Against Impunity (CAAI) filed a class action against Anvil
Mining for its alleged involvement in a 2004 massacre near its mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC). Anvil Mining is incorporated in Canada’s Northwest Territories, listed on the Toronto Stock
Exchange and operates from an office in Quebec; it also has offices in Australia, South Africa and the
DRC. The company is accused of providing logistical support to the Congolese military to help them
counter an attempt by a small armed rebel group to take over the town of Kilwa, a key port for Anvil
Mining’s operations. Congolese military forces, sent to defeat the rebels, were implicated in the killing,
rape and torture of civilians in Kilwa. More than 70 civilians were killed, including at least 28 who were
summarily executed.
When the case was before the Quebec Superior Court, Judge Benoit Emery ruled that no viable channels
existed for the Congolese victims and families to seek justice, and that although Anvil Mining’s head
office at the time of the incident was in Perth, Australia, sufficient links existed to establish jurisdictionin Quebec. The Quebec Court of Appeal, in overturning this decision, found that the requirements of
the Quebec Civil Code (Art. 3148(2)) had not been met with respect to jurisdiction. This finding
contradicted those in the lower court, which held that the principal, if not sole activity, of Anvil Mining’s
Quebec office was the management of the Congo mine, that the role of its Montreal-based Vice
President of Corporate Affairs was necessarily linked to the exploitation of the mine in the DRC, and that
no other viable forum for the survivors of the Kilwa Massacre to seek justice existed.
The survivors have already tried—and ultimately failed—to obtain justice in other jurisdictions. A
deeply flawed military trial conducted in Congo acquitted all defendants. No further domestic legal
remedies are available. In Australia, preliminary efforts to obtain disclosure prior to starting a lawsuit
had to be abandoned when the Congolese authorities refused to allow the victims’ legal representatives
to travel to Kilwa to confirm instructions. The Congolese lawyers received death threats and the
Australian law firm withdrew. Given the circumstances, no other law firm was willing to take on the
case.
Having now invested their hope, time and meagre resources to launch a case in Canada with the help of
their advocates, the villagers of Kilwa are not in a position to start over again. This is especially true
considering that another obstacle is looming for the plaintiffs: in February 2012 Anvil Mining was
acquired by MMG Malachite, a Chinese company, and wholly owned subsidiary of the Hong Kong listed
MinMetals Resources Limited.
As Amnesty International stated in a recent release on this case:
“Courts have a vital role to play in bridging the existing accountability gaps. When home
state courts close their doors to foreign victims of corporate human rights abuses they may end all realistic avenues for them to seek reparation. In cases of alleged human
rights abuses, decisions on jurisdiction must be informed first and foremost by human
rights considerations; in particular the extent to which claimants stand a realistic chance
of accessing justice and obtaining adequate reparation in other forums. If these
elements have no place in the balancing exercise that a judge conducts to assess
jurisdiction, it is no surprise that alternative forums, found to be adequate, blatantly fail
to provide victims of corporate human rights abuses with access to justice and
reparation in practice.”
This decision by the Quebec Court of Appeals closes an important avenue for redress for victims. This
avenue is needed to ensure that human rights are protected and that business actors are heldaccountable for their impacts. We understand that the victims in this case will seek vindication of their
rights at the Supreme Court of Canada, and we express our support for their efforts to find justice.
![[Anvil Christopher] Anvil, Christopher - Interstel(BookFi)](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/577c7f1a1a28abe054a33ed5/anvil-christopher-anvil-christopher-interstelbookfi.jpg)
