{"id":153258,"date":"2025-12-05T11:42:14","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T10:42:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/?p=153258"},"modified":"2025-12-05T11:55:26","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T10:55:26","slug":"lafarge-will-there-be-a-trial-for-complicity-in-crimes-against-humanity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/en\/153258-lafarge-will-there-be-a-trial-for-complicity-in-crimes-against-humanity.html","title":{"rendered":"Lafarge: Will there be a trial for complicity in crimes against humanity?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

While Lafarge is on trial in Paris for funding terrorism, the complicity in crimes against humanity aspect of this case remains under investigation. Former Syrian employees fear they will never see justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe were prepared for a long legal battle,\u201d says D., a former Syrian employee of French cement manufacturer Lafarge who wishes to remain anonymous. But, he quickly adds, he feels \u201cit is taking even longer than usual.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ongoing trial for financing terrorism<\/a> is certainly helping to oil the wheels of the judicial machine. But it also reminds him of what is not being tried\u2014and may never be. In Syria, D. worked for nearly four years at the Jalabiya plant in the northeast of the country, run by Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS), a subsidiary of the French cement company. In 2010, he was hired as a \u201cmanager\u201d \u2013 first in the production department, then in the \u201ccontrol\u201d department. But in 2013, the situation became too dangerous and difficult, so he fled to Germany and continued working remotely for the cement plant until February 2014. The plant closed its doors just a few months later in September, when the site was taken over by Islamic State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, D. is in Paris. He has come to testify before the criminal court trying Lafarge<\/a> until December 19 for \u201cfinancing\u201d several terrorist organizations and \u201cviolating\u201d international financial sanctions. Eight individuals are also appearing in court for all or part of these offences. Among them are several former executives of the group\u2014including its former CEO Bruno Lafont, as well as managers and other staff of the cement manufacturer and its subsidiary. The French courts accuse them of paying more than \u20ac5 million between 2013 and 2014 to Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nosra, and Ahrar al-Sham to maintain production at the cement plant as the war-ravaged region fell under the control of jihadist groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case split in two<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Lafarge is currently in court to answer only part of the allegations against it, as the most serious charges are still under investigation. The French cement manufacturer, which has since merged with Swiss group Holcim, is also being prosecuted for complicity in crimes against humanity\u2014a charge that was formally brought in 2024, after a long legal saga. Initially part of the same judicial investigation, this charge was separated in 2023. A second trial for this charge, if confirmed, could still take years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issues at stake, methods of investigation and timeframes are not the same for the two charges, according to a judicial source explaining why the cases were separated. She thinks this decision was \u201cnothing unusual\u201d. The complicity in crimes against humanity aspect is said to be more complex than tracing financial flows. It requires \u201cdiplomatic channels\u201d, which lengthens the process. Since the \u201cfinancing\u201d aspect was investigated more quickly, the judges preferred not to delay the entire case. Another reason given is that the two sets of charges do not fall under the same jurisdiction. The terrorism aspect could be dealt with in a criminal court, while the crimes against humanity aspect must be dealt with in a criminal court of assizes. In other words, they would have had to be tried separately \u2013 \u201cunless the financing was considered a related offence\u201d, which would have led to referral to a criminal court of assizes and lengthened the time it took to bring the case to trial.<\/p>\n\n\n

\r\n\t

HOW THE CASE BEGAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

In November 2016, 11 former Syrian employees and two NGOs \u2013 Sherpa<\/a> and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR<\/a>) \u2013 filed a complaint for \u201ccomplicity in crimes against humanity\u201d, \u201cfinancing terrorist organizations\u201d, \u201cdeliberately endangering the lives of others\u201d and other related offences. After years of procedural battles and several orders from the Court of Cassation, judicial procedures were tightened. Lafarge was finally put under investigation for two main crimes: \u201ccomplicity in crimes against humanity\u201d and \u201cfinancing terrorism\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Anna Kiefer, litigation and advocacy officer at the Sherpa NGO, which filed a complaint against Lafarge in 2016, points out it is the same alleged payments that are said to have both financed terrorist organizations and contributed to the commission of crimes against humanity. However, since the charges are different, the elements to be established are not the same. To prove the multinational\u2019s complicity through \u201caid and assistance\u201d, the lawyer says it is first necessary to \u201cestablish the existence of the main offence\u201d and \u201cprove that crimes against humanity were indeed committed\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe mere fact of committing an act of complicity\u2014which may take the form of financing\u2014while knowing that the group is committing crimes against humanity is sufficient,\u201d says Mathieu Bagard, one of the lawyers representing former Syrian employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cdistinction\u201d made by the Court of Cassation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

But were the people working for the multinational company and its Syrian subsidiary aware of what was happening in the area around the Jalabiya factory? What did they know about the abuses committed by terrorist groups?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

French justice has been hesitant on this issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2019, the investigating chamber initially dismissed the French cement company\u2019s indictment for complicity in crimes against humanity, considering that the payments were intended solely to maintain production and did not reflect any desire to \u201cassociate\u201d with terrorist group crimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in September 2021, the Court of Cassation ruled that Lafarge must have had \u201cprecise knowledge\u201d of Islamic State actions in Syria, which were \u201clikely\u201d to constitute crimes against humanity. The judges of France\u2019s highest court considered that knowingly paying millions of euros to an organization \u201cwhose sole purpose is criminal\u201d is sufficient to \u201camount to complicity through aid and assistance\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is ground breaking. In the judges\u2019 view, wanting to ensure the continuation of business activities is a \u201cmotive\u201d, not an \u201can element of intent\u201d. Requiring the \u201caccomplice\u201d to adhere to the ideology, conception or execution of the crimes would amount to leaving \u201cmany acts of complicity unpunished\u201d. It is precisely \u201cthe multiplication of such acts that enables crimes against humanity\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cmost sensational\u201d decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This 2021 ruling establishes \u201cthe distinction we were waiting for\u201d, says Claire Tixeire, co-director of the Institute for Legal Intervention at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR). She even considers it to be the \u201cmost sensational decision in the entire case\u201d, not only because it paves the way for Lafarge to be investigated for complicity in crimes against humanity but especially because it clarifies an essential point: a company can be an accomplice to an international crime without sharing the criminal intent of the principal perpetrator. By stating that the desire to preserve economic activities does not exempt the company from criminal responsibility, the Court of Cassation has sent a message to \u201cthe entire business community\u201d, she says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now that the French cement manufacturer has been formally charged, investigating magistrates must determine whether Lafarge was aware of the abuses committed by the groups it allegedly financed, according to Tixeire. \u201cThat will be the central issue,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\r\n\t\t
FIND THIS ARTICLE INTERESTING?<\/div>\r\n\t\t
\r\n\t\t\tSign up now for our (free) newsletter<\/a> to make sure you don't miss out on other publications of this type. \t\t<\/div>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t\n\n\n

Everything interlinks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

She thinks the hearings in the \u201cfinancing\u201d trial will allow \u201ccertain elements\u201d to be brought to light that could be added to the ongoing investigation. Tixeire mentions the testimony of a DGSI agent, heard before the criminal court. \u201cHe was categorical. In his opinion, Lafarge could not have been unaware that Islamic State, if we are to mention only this group, was the most dangerous terrorist entity in the world.\u201d She also referred to the long list of \u201catrocious\u201d and \u201cdocumented\u201d crimes taking place in Iraq and Syria \u201cat exactly the time of the events\u201d. In addition, there are the statements by former Syrian employees who, she says, told their management about the abuses committed in the region: crucifixions, stoning, summary executions and more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCheap, unimportant people who can die\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

D. says \u201cwe need to move faster\u201d, because several of his \u201colder\u201d colleagues who \u201chave waited a long time\u201d have already died \u201cdisappointed\u201d, and also because many of those who remain \u201chave lost hope of obtaining justice and reparation\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This feeling is reinforced by the fact that the civil parties still do not know whether they are confirmed as parties to the ongoing trial. In 2022, the Court of Cassation ruled that the offence of financing terrorism only harmed the public interest, without causing \u201cdirect harm\u201d to individuals. This interpretation was contested by lawyers for the civil parties at the start of the trial<\/a>, but the court\u2019s decision on the matter remains for now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Former Syrian employees think this interpretation is \u201cregrettable\u201d. D.\u2019s \u201cgreat hope\u201d is that \u201cwhat we went through\u201d will be heard. \u201cWe are not just after compensation,\u201d he says. \u201cWe need justice. We need these people to tell us why they pushed us into the fire. Why was the risk level red for foreigners [evacuations of expatriates were organized from mid-2012, but the factory did not close until two years later], but green or orange for us?\u201d D. says he knows the answer: \u201cIt\u2019s because, to them, we were \u2018locals\u2019. They saw us as cheap, unimportant people who could die.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D. also expresses his immense disappointment at the decision to drop the charges of \u201cendangering the lives of others\u201d, which initially targeted Lafarge [see box]. The charges were definitively dropped by the French courts, which ruled that Syrian employees could not benefit from the protections provided by French law because they were employed by LCS\u2014even though the subsidiary was 98.7% owned by the multinational.<\/p>\n\n\n\n