Plaintiffs' Representatives Confident After Hearing in Landmark Human Rights Case

San Francisco – Representatives of the plaintiffs in the landmark human rights case Doe v. Unocal pronounced themselves satisfied with today’s oral arguments in front of 11 judges of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. Today’s hearing was part of the appeals process in a case brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) alleging the complicity of the California based oil company Unocal in gross human rights violations committed by the Burmese military on behalf of the company’s natural gas pipeline.

“The judges appeared to give no credence to Unocal’s theory that these kinds of cases cannot be brought under ATCA,” said attorney Paul Hoffman, Cooperating Attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights and a partner in the Venice law firm of Schonbrun, De Simone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman, who argued for the plaintiffs. “We are confident that the Court will allow this case to move forward.”

Unocal attorney M. Randall Oppenheimer attempted to argue from the outset that ATCA does not provide a “cause of action” for plaintiffs, but the judges instructed him to assume that the case could be brought under ATCA. The judges also appeared skeptical of Unocal’s attempt to describe forced labor, widely used in the pipeline area, as “temporarily conscripted labor.”

“The plaintiffs might not understand the legal fine points argued today, but they do know what happened to them and they know it was because of Unocal’s pipeline,” said Ka Hsaw Wa, Co-director of EarthRights International, which is co-counsel for the plaintiffs, who acts as interpreter for the plaintiffs. “They believe, and I believe, that truth and justice will prevail in this case.”

Today’s line of questioning by the judges appears to indicate that they will not accept the recent argument by the U.S. Department of Justice that the past 23 years of jurisprudence on ATCA is wrong and that a new statute would be needed to bring cases like the Unocal case. Still at issue for the Ninth Circuit is what standard of complicity to apply in determining Unocal’s liability for the events described in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ attorneys believe that under both Federal Common Law and International Law, Unocal is liable for essentially aiding and abetting the Burmese military in the commission of gross human rights abuses, including forced labor, rape and murder.

A companion case is scheduled to go to trial on July 21st in California State court in Los Angeles.