A/HRC/8/16 page 15 48. Generally, in neither international nor national criminal law jurisdictions is the liability of an accomplice dependent on the conviction of the principal perpetrator.37 3. Domestic civil liability 49. The issue of legal responsibility for company participation in human rights abuses has also been raised in non-criminal cases filed against companies in domestic courts. 50. In the United States, ATCA allows tort claims to be brought in federal courts by non-US citizens for violations of international law.38 The parameters of how this Statute can be used with respect to companies are still being defined, and no case against a company has yet been determined on its merits. As stated previously, recent cases against companies under ATCA have tended to involve claims of complicity rather than direct involvement in an international law violation. 51. The US Supreme Court’s only decision under ATCA does not appear to preclude aiding and abetting liability for corporations under the Statute,39 and the weight of current US judicial opinion appears to support the existence of such liability.40 Moreover, some courts that have entertained ATCA claims for company complicity in human rights abuses have referred to and applied the international criminal law standards of aiding and abetting in this context.41 52. Beyond the context of ATCA, other types of non-criminal law, such as the laws of intentional torts, negligence and of non-contractual obligations, are increasingly employed to claim that corporations should be held accountable for their indirect participation in human rights 37 Ibid., p. 18. See also, Akayesu (ICTR Trial Chamber), 2 September 1998, para. 531. 38 28 U.S.C. §1350. 39 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 (US, 2004). 40 For a recent discussion of the ways in which US courts have approached this question, see Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank, 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir., 2007), part of the so-called “Apartheid litigation”. Note that the defendants in the Apartheid litigation recently asked the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s decision, arguing, inter alia, that the Second Circuit erred in deciding that aiding and abetting liability exists under ATCA (re: American Isuzu Motors, Inc., et al. v. Ntsebeza, et al). See http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ petitions-to-watch-conference-of-42508/ for relevant documentation. The Supreme Court will consider the petition on 25 April 2008. 41 For example, see: Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank, 504 F.3d 254, 276 (2d Cir., 2007); Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257, 285-286 & n.33 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); and Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 453 F. Supp. 2d 633, 668 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).