abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

內容有以下的語言版本: English, español

法律訴訟

2009年1月1日

作者:
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Monterrico Metals lawsuit (re Peru)

查看所有標籤

狀態: CLOSED

提訴日期
2009年1月1日
未知
人權維護人士
申訴地點: 英國
事發地點: 秘魯
訴訟類型: 跨國

企業

Rio Tinto 英國 採礦
Shell plc 英國 油、氣、煤
Serco 英國 職業介紹所
Securitas AB Group 瑞典 安保公司
Teck Resources 加拿大 採礦
Trafigura Beheer 荷蘭 油、氣、煤
Anglo American 英國 採礦
BHP 澳洲 採礦, 油、氣、煤
bp 英國 油、氣、煤
BAE Systems 英國 武器/兵器
Compañia de Minas Buenaventura 秘魯 金屬和鋼鐵
Cambior 加拿大 採礦
Chevron 美國 油、氣、煤
Erinys International 英國 安保公司
Forza (part of Securitas) 秘魯 安保公司, 技術、電信和電子產品
Merck 德國 藥品
Mitsubishi Group 日本 食品和飲料, 化學製品:綜合, 電器, 金融和銀行業, 採礦, 技術、電信和電子產品, 運輸:綜合
Minera Yanacocha (part of Newmont) 秘魯 金屬和鋼鐵, 採礦
Tongling Nonferrous Metals 中國 採礦, 金屬和鋼鐵
紫金礦業 中國 採礦, 金屬和鋼鐵

Sources

Para la versión en español de este perfil de las demandas judiciales contra Monterrico Metals por actividades en Peru, haga clic acá.

In 2009, eight Peruvians commenced legal proceedings in the English High Court against British mining company Monterrico Metals and its Peruvian subsidiary Rio Blanco copper. Plaintiffs allege police detained 28 people protesting against the proposed development of the Rio Blanco Mine and committed several human rights violations against them including sexual assault and beatings. The company settled the case out of court but did not admit liability. 


In early 2009, eight Peruvians commenced legal proceedings in the English High Court against British mining company Monterrico Metals and its Peruvian subsidiary Rio Blanco Copper (previously known as Minera Majaz).  The number of claimants has since increased.  The claimants alleged that in July-August 2005, police detained 28 people protesting against a proposed development of the Rio Blanco Mine, sprayed noxious substances in their faces, hooded them, beat them with sticks and whipped them.  Two of the female detainees alleged they were sexually assaulted and threatened with rape.  The detainees claimed that the abuse and detention went on for three days and that they suffered serious injuries.  The claimants sought damages for the alleged direct involvement of certain Monterrico and Rio Blanco personnel in the abuse (along with personnel from a private security company employed by Rio Blanco), alleged material support to the police, and the companies’ failure to prevent or react to the abuse.  The companies deny any involvement in the alleged abuses.

On 2 June 2009, the claimants obtained a freezing injunction at the English High Court prohibiting Monterrico from disposing of assets to an extent that would leave it with less than £7.2 million in the UK.  The company had indicated that, for commercial reasons, it planned to de-list from the FTSE Alternative Investment Market (AIM) index.  This raised concerns that it might transfer assets out of the jurisdiction and thus prevent the claimants from collecting damages following any successful action.  This freezing injunction was made permanent on 16 October 2009 for the sum of £5.015 million.  On 20 July 2011, the company settled the case out of court by compensation payments and without admitting liability.

On 6 June 2008, Peru’s National Coordinator for Human Rights (CNDDHH) and the Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ) filed a criminal complaint against senior police officers responsible for the police response to the protest, police officers involved in the alleged abuse, and against Rio Blanco security and other personnel.  The complaint alleges tat Rio Blanco’s security personnel were directly involved in the abuses.  On 9 March 2009, the prosecutor cleared the mining company and their security personnel of wrongdoing, but allowed proceedings against the police to continue on the charges of torture.  On 16 March 2009, FEDEPAZ appealed the prosecutor’s decision.  On 2 April 2009, the appeal was accepted by the prosecutorial authority, which ordered further investigations, including the taking of statements from identified employees and a legal representative of Rio Blanco.

On 14 November 2012, the First Penal Appeal Court of Piura sentenced the former Joint Provincial Attorney of Huancabamba for omission charges. The former Attorney accepted charges and admitted to committing the offences contained in the proceedings. He acknowledged that a group of peasants was subject to torture at the mining field of Rio Blanco Copper SA, and that he deliberately omitted to disclose this to the competent judicial body.


時間線