by René Lavanchy
A multinational British company had £5 million in assets frozen this week, in advance of a multi-million pound claim for alleged rape, torture and assault at the firm’s mine in northern Peru.
The High Court has upheld a freezing injunction against Monterrico Metals, in what is thought to be the first order of its kind obtained for the sake of making assets available for possible compensation for human rights violations.
Peruvian locals who are bringing the case were detained by armed police when they marched on the Rio Blanco copper mine in July 2005 to protest about the mine’s opening without local permission. The police, they say, beat them, raped two women, shot three protesters and left one man to die, allegedly with the help and support of staff from Monterrico and its Peruvian subsidiary.
Richard Meeran, a partner at law firm Leigh Day & Co who are handling the case, said: “There is no evidence that I have seen of the company taking any steps to prevent these actions. On the contrary, it would appear to be the case that the company was working in cahoots with the police.”
Photographs of the incident show protesters bound, blindfolded and hooded with large plastic bags under armed police guard. Police are also seen displaying women’s underwear, in what the claimants allege was “degrading treatment” of the protesters.
Although the police allegedly carried out the abuses, the detainees say Monterrico’s knowledge and their failure to stop it makes them complicit. They say Raymond Angus, Moneterrico’s chief operating officer, was in Peru at the time. One claimant also says he overheard that Monterrico director Andrew Bristow directed the torture of detainees, according to court documents.
Lawyers moved to get Monterrico’s assets frozen after they noticed the company was intending to de-list itself from the London Stock Exchange, in a possible sign they might move their assets abroad – which could render a claim in the English courts useless.
Mr Meeran said the freezing order was “highly unusual, but vital because otherwise these Peruvians would’ve been left high and dry, with a case that was well founded and the possibility of getting to the end of it and there being no realistic prospect of enforcing the judgment”.
Monterrico says that allegations that they were complicit in the alleged abuses are “wholly without merit”. They also claim that the protesters were detained after one of them shot a policeman in the leg.
