A/HRC/40/CRP.1 Prosecution to indict the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman for crimes against civilians committed on the territory of what is now South Sudan.1092 The case is an example of states exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict their nationals over crimes committed in other states, and as such presents one of the first such cases where prosecutions may be brought implicating oil companies for their involvement in human rights violations. On 1 November 2018 Lundin Petroleum issued a press release explaining that: The Swedish Prosecution Authority has issued a notification of a corporate fine and forfeiture of economic benefits against Lundin Petroleum in relation to past operations in Sudan from 1997 to 2003. The notification indicates that the Prosecutor may seek: a) a corporate fine of SEK 3 million; and b) forfeiture of economic benefits from the alleged offense in the amount of SEK 3,282 million, based on the profit of the sale of the Block 5A asset in 2003 of SEK 729 million. 1093 The Lundin Press Release continues by explaining that any fines and forfeitures would only be imposed after any trial of the individuals, and in “June 2010, the Swedish Prosecution Authority initiated a preliminary investigation into alleged complicity in violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan during 1997–2003.”1094 As demonstrated by the Lundin case, attempts to hold transnational companies and their representatives criminally accountable for human rights violations have been painstakingly slow, complex and difficult. 1095 It has been noted however, that such prosecutions are not only a useful tool in bringing corporate officials to justice, they also can be “an effective means of shaping corporate conduct, particularly pointing to the systems and procedures companies should put in place to build a culture of compliance and prevention.”1096 This is especially relevant in the context of South Sudan, where transnational companies with majority stakes in the oil corporations such as CNPC and ONGC have reportedly not shown great concern for the legacy of human rights abuses linked to oil production in the areas where they have been operating. 1097 3. Other Resources as Drivers of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Violations a) Cattle herding and migration Several of the cases investigated by the Commission and others are closely related to tensions arising between local and ethnic groups on cattle movements and cattle raiding. Essentially the cattle migration relates to the (right of) use of land and agricultural activities such as the cultivation and harvesting of crops and the provision of food security in rural areas, which has historically been both a cause and a consequence of armed conflict in South Sudan.1098 The problems are exacerbated by the fact that, as with the cattle raiding, opposing groups have been increasingly co-opted in existing Government and paramilitary armed Richard Milne, “Swedish oil bosses set to be charged over South Sudan deaths”, Financial Times, 18 October 2018. Lundin Petroleum, “Press Release: Lundin Petroleum receives information regarding a potential corporate fine and forfeiture of economic benefits in relation to past operations in Sudan”, 1 November 2018. 1094 Lundin Petroleum, “Press Release: Lundin Petroleum receives information regarding a potential corporate fine and forfeiture of economic benefits in relation to past operations in Sudan”, 1 November 2018. 1095 A similar case in point was the initiative by Amnesty International, urging the Dutch and UK Governments in 2017 to start criminal proceedings against representatives of the Dutch/UK Shell oil company, for their involvement in human rights violations in the Niger Delta in Nigeria in the 1990s. While AI provided extensive information and arguments substantiating allegations that Shell had “knowingly contributed to and encouraged the human rights violations committed by the Nigerian Government” against protestors from the Ogoni tribe, no criminal investigations have been launched to date in the companies’ home countries (Amnesty International, “A Criminal Enterprise? Shell’s Involvement in Human Rights Violations in Nigeria in the 1990s”, November 2017. Multiple civil suits have meanwhile been filed against Shell in other countries though by victims of human rights violations or their relatives (Amnesty International, “Seeking Justice, the Rising Tide of Court Cases against Shell”, Investor Briefing, May 2018). 1096 Corporate Complicity & Legal Accountability, Volume 2, Criminal Law and International Crimes, Report of the International Commission of Jurists Expert Legal Panel on Corporate Complicity in International Crimes, p. 6. 1097 Patey, L., The New Kings of Crude, China, India and the Global Struggle for Oil in Sudan and South Sudan, 2014, pp.178-183; The Globe Post, “South Sudan Turns to Oil Industry Investors to Spark Economic Growth”, 21 November 2018. 1098 Global Hunger Index, Cattle, Conflict and Coping, 2015. 1092 1093 139