Lukas, the case that i know is Linked with the US law call ATCA. In these cases the  US courts used the genocid international law to accountable Corporations, but only in civil aspects.

I would recommend reading A. Nollkaemper, "Internationally Wrongful Acts in Domestic Courts" (2007) The American Journal of International Law 760. His scholarship can be very useful for your research. Best of luck!

Robert Thompson, Anita Ramasastry & Mark Taylor, Translating Unocal: The Expanding Web of Liability for Business Entities Implicated in Interna- tional Crimes, 40 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 841 (2009)

The attached paper has some interesting observations:

It is a pity, but here are no cases...

In Spain is an ongoing judicial investigation among others for a crime of corruption of foreign officials (NNUU Convention transposed to national law) in which there is several legal persons accused (one of them is DEFEX). Public information is available in the media, in Spanish.

Hi. This is an interesting question. I just did a quick search to see if I could find any actual case of a corporation being held criminally liable under international law (not just corporate officers). Based on what I found, it appears that traditionally corporations, as legal persons, have not been subject to such prosecution--most sources seem to agree on that up through 2015, 2016, and 2017. However, certain sources have discussed certain cases that have been heard before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in which corporations, as legal persons, have been held to be subject to criminal jurisdiction for the first time, and this appears to be a major milestone gradually moving in the direction of holding corporations to higher standards of accountability in international law, someday perhaps including criminal liability for corporations. 

As of July 2016, David Scheffer, writing in the Harvard International Law Journal, noted,"Can corporate perpetration of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (atrocity crimes) be investigated and prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC)? The answer is conditionally affirmative with respect to corporate officers responsible for their company’s criminal conduct. However, investigation and prosecution of corporations themselves as juridical persons would require complex amendments to the Rome Statute of the ICC."

[link:  http://www.harvardilj.org/2016/07/corporate-liability-under-the-rome-statute/ ]

Here are two useful recent articles discussing recent legal developments involving corporate criminal liability under international law, including the Special Tribunal for Lebanon cases:

Caroline Kaeb, "THE SHIFTING SANDS OF CORPORATE LIABILITY UNDER

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW," George Washington International Law Review 49 (2017), 351-403

[Link: http://www.gwilr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ILR-Vol-49.2_Caroline-Kaeb.pdf ]

Nadia Bernaz, "Corporate Criminal Liability under International Law," Journal of International Criminal Justice 13 (2015), 313-330; doi:10.1093/jicj/mqv014

[Link: https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jicj/13/2/10.1093/jicj/mqv014/2/mqv014.pdf ]

Attached is a paper I did in 2010 on Resource Extraction in the Congo published in the Asper Review. I list a number of cases near the end citing some corporate criminal liability cases in international law.  In particular see footnotes 115-117 Re: Frans van Anraat in the Netherlands Courts.

http://asperchairwp.bryan-schwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/Asper/Volume%2010/Articles/Vol_10_Burchill.pdf

Dear Sir, 

Under Iranian Criminal code (revised on 2010 ) we have an article which recognizes criminal liability of legal persons (corporations). If this is beneficial for u, make me aware of that, then I will translate the article and send it to you.

Best Regards,

[email protected]

I would suggest you to look for Argentina's jurisprudence. The country had a dictatorship on the 70's and from the 90's on, the State has been persecuting and judging a lot of protagonists of the exceptional period at domestic level. They are very advanced on this process of compensation the victims of that period and I would not doubt they may have responsibilized corporations for their acts on supporting crimes against humanity acted by the regime.

كنت اتمنى الاجابة

Briefing of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

Facts: This case involves a complaint brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) alleging that the Appellants—the parent holding companies at the apex of the huge Royal Dutch Shell international, integrated oil enterprise—are liable under the ATS on the theory that their actions aided the government of Nigeria in inflicting human rights abuses on the Ogoni peoples in the jungles of Nigeria. The complaint alleges that Shell knew of human rights abuses committed by officials of the government of Nigeria and took actions which contributed indirectly to the commission of those offenses.

Procedural History: The case has been heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kimba M. Wood, Judge) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (JACOBS, Chief Judge, LEVAL, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges). The courts have dismissed the complaint.

Issues: The main legal questions that the court must decide in this case are: (1) which body of law governs the question of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) - international law or domestic law; and (2) what do the sources of international law reveal with respect to whether corporations can be subject to liability for violations of the law of nations.

Rule: The court used the sources of international law identified in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (“ICJ Statute”) to come to a decision in this case.

Holding: The court decided that the complaint did not satisfy the standard of pleading specific facts that would allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant was liable for the misconduct alleged. Therefore, the court dismissed the suit against SPDC for lack of personal jurisdiction on June 21, 2010. No action or remedy was ordered.

Reasoning: The court reached its decision by looking to the sources of international law identified in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (“ICJ Statute”). These sources include international conventions, international custom, the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations. The court then looked to international tribunals, such as the Nuremberg Tribunals, to see if any had held a corporation liable for a violation of the law of nations. It found that none had. The court then looked to the Supreme Court's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), which held that a norm must enjoy universal acceptance to qualify as a rule of international law. The court then looked to the sources of international law to determine whether corporate liability had attained universal acceptance as a rule of customary international law. It found that it had not. Lastly, the court looked to the arcane terminology of international law and found that a corporation is a “subject” of international law and is therefore capable of being a plaintiff or a defendant in an action based on a violation of the law of nations. The court concluded that nothing in the sources of international law revealed that corporate liability had attained universal acceptance as a rule of customary international law, and thus, it could not limit or foreclose criminal, administrative, or civil actions against any corporation under a body of law other than customary international law.

I hope that case information will help.

Kind regard,

Rada Pavlova

@