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
Article

10 Nov 2022

Author:
The Supreme Court of Sweden

Swedish court has jurisdiction to hear a case of alleged war crimes in Sudan

In November 2021, the prosecutor brought charges against two people for complicity in war crimes that they, as representatives of companies within the Swedish oil company group Lundin Oil, allegedly committed in Sudan between 1999 and 2003. One person is a Swiss citizen and resident of Switzerland. He was in Switzerland when the charges were filed.

The Supreme Court has now examined whether the Swedish court has jurisdiction to hear the charges against the Swiss citizen. The Court finds that, according to the Swedish legislation, the crime is subject to so-called universal jurisdiction. This means that a Swedish court, as a starting point, has jurisdiction to hear the case regardless of who has committed the crime, who the crime has been directed at and where the crime has been committed.

According to the Supreme Court, even in the exercise of universal jurisdiction, some form of connection to Sweden is required for a prosecution to be tried here. A further prerequisite is that there is no obstacle to it in international customary law.

The Supreme Court has concluded that the connection to Sweden is sufficient for the prosecution to be tried in Swedish courts and that there is no obstacle to it in international customary law.

- The fact that the defendant is not in Sweden does not constitute an obstacle to Swedish jurisdiction, provided that the connection to Sweden in other respects is sufficient, says Justice Johan Danelius, who is one of the judges who participated in the decision.

The Supreme Court's decision means that the indictment is not dismissed. The court has therefore not ruled on the claim for costs made by the Swiss citizen in the case.

The handling of the criminal case is now continuing at the Stockholm District Court.

Timeline

Privacy information

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies. You can set your privacy choices below. Changes will take effect immediately.

For more information on our use of web storage, please refer to our Data Usage and Cookies Policy

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

Analytics cookie

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

Your privacy choices for this site

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies to enhance your experience beyond necessary core functionality.