A/HRC/35/33 with other serious crimes under national law. 20 This could involve referring evidence derived from field investigations of the Court relating to economic actors involved in international crimes. 21. However, there have been few active investigations and prosecutions of businesses or individual economic actors, despite numerous allegations implicating both in international crimes. To be sure, mounting a successful case for such crimes is a monumental task, particularly owing to the difficulty in obtaining evidence across borders that meets some jurisdictions’ stringent admissibility standards. But no reasonable justification exists for neglecting to address allegations of international crimes committed by economic actors. As was emphasized in the Working Group’s consultations, such investigations typically are no more expensive or complicated than cases involving terrorism or organized crime. 22. It was established as far back as the trials held under Control Council Law No. 10 following World War II that companies were capable of committing international crimes. In the case of United States v. Krupp, it was shown conclusively that throughout the firm of Krupp and its subsidiaries, prisoners of war had been employed in armament production, in violation of the laws and customs of war. Similarly, in the Farben case (United States v. Krauch), the tribunal noted that where private individuals, including legal persons, exploit the military occupancy by acquiring private property against the will and consent of the former owner, such action is in violation of international law. 21 While the companies as such were not prosecuted in the trials, the industrialists in charge of the companies were found guilty of committing the war crimes of plunder and the use of slave labour. 23. In the 70 years since those cases, the Working Group is unaware of a single successful prosecution of a company for committing or aiding and abetting an international crime. Numerous attempts have been made at initiating investigations, usually owing to pressure from civil society organizations, yet those investigations languished, often without official explanations for a decision not to prosecute. 22 24. There have been a few prosecutions of individual businesspeople for cross-border international crimes. One notable case concerns Frans van Anraat, a Netherlands businessman who had supplied chemicals to the regime in Iraq under Saddam Hussein through a web of companies around the world. 23 Those chemicals were subsequently used in attacks against Kurds, killing tens of thousands of people. Originally arrested in Italy in 1989 at the request of the United States of America, van Anraat fled the country after posting bail. In 2004, he was arrested in the Netherlands. The specialized Netherlands International Crimes Unit conducted the case and successfully admitted evidence derived from multiple jurisdictions, including Belgium and the United States. Van Anraat was subsequently found guilty by a Netherlands court for being complicit in war crimes and was ultimately sentenced to 17 years in prison. 25. In addition, a specialized unit in the Norway National Criminal Investigation Service focusing on international crimes successfully prosecuted a businessman for complicity in genocide in Rwanda. 24 Sadi Bugingo was a businessman in Kibungo and had used his wealth and status to support the Interahamwe militia, including by handing out supplies to fighters at his store in the city centre. 25 In investigating the case, Norwegian officials 20 21 22 23 24 25 See Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, “Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation” (2016). Available from www.icc-cpi.int/itemsdocuments/20160915_otp-policy_caseselection_eng.pdf. See United States v. Krupp and United States v. Krauch (1948). Available from www.loc.gov/rr/ frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol-10.pdf. See “Corporate Crimes Principles” (footnote 3 above). See www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=6332. See https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/sadi-bugingo; and www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/ Case/919/Bugingo/. See 2013 Oslo District Court Judgment, pp. 16-17. Available in Norwegian only from www.asser.nl/ upload/documents/20130226T095633-Oslo%20District%20Court%20judgment%2014-022013%20Norwegian.pdf. 7