Daimler and Rheinmetall facing lawsuit for supporting apartheid crimes

22 August 2013 - South African Apartheid victims have suffered a serious setback in their struggle for compensation. The 2nd Circuit Court in the United States established in its decision of 21 August 2013 that based on the Alien Torts Claims Act (ATCA), it will hardly be possible in the future to sue corporations for human rights violations committed outside the United States. After the Kiobel case from Nigeria, now the claims of Apartheid victims from South Africa have been rejected.

However, the survivors will not give up their struggle, and also ECCHR will continue to work towards holding corporations responsible for Apartheid crimes.
 
Background
 
The plaintiffs in the proceedings (In re South African Apartheid Litigation) are victims of the South African apartheid regime who are suing eight corporations from the US, Europe and Germany. The defendants include companies from the automotive industry (including Daimler) as well as IT companies and an arms company (Rheinmetall). The plaintiffs accuse the companies of either directly committing violations in South Africa of human rights guaranteed under customary international law, or of facilitating and supporting state-sponsored human rights violations by supplying materials used in the commission of crimes.
 
ECCHR is supporting the lawsuit filed in the US by South African victims of the apartheid regime against eight European and US corporations. Together with the New York Center for Constitutional Rights, KASA (Kirchlichen Arbeitsstelle Südliches Afrika) and Medico International, ECCHR compiled an amicus curiae brief on the significance of legal proceedings in the context of dealing with human rights violations. This brief was submitted to the court of the Southern District of New York on 30 November 2009.
 
In a number of official statements, the German government has opposed the lawsuit and has, as such, sided with the corporations. The government claims the case violates its sovereignty, maintaining that such claims against German companies would first need to be brought before a court in Germany. It also contended that the suit represents a threat to international trade since it allegedly creates a high degree of legal uncertainty for corporations.
ECCHR has commented on the German government’s position as set out in response to questions from parliamentary parties Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and Die Linke.  
 
Program director Miriam Saage-Maaß shed some more light on the case and its connection to transnational legal proceedings in the article, “Geschäft ist Geschäft?” in Heft 1/2010 of Kritische Justiz. You can find the article (in German) below.