Report 72 – The Testimony of Christine Batruch

The week of 20 January 2026, the court heard Christine Batruch, who worked with corporate social responsibility (CSR) at Lundin Oil in various capacities between 1999-2020. Her testimony lasted three days, although four days were initially allocated to the hearing.  She answered questions about her background and experience regarding CSR and Sudan before she was hired by Lundin Oil, the situation in Block 5A and the company’s operations in the area, and about her contacts with representatives from the Sudanese government. Finally, she testified about the production of reports and documents which have been presented as written evidence in the case.

Day 1

Batruch started by describing her various assignments for Lundin Oil. She was initially hired by the company in October 1999 and started working as a consultant in November 1999. Her first assignment was to produce a report regarding the situation in Sudan as a response to the allegations which had been made by the then-UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Leonardo Franco.

To examine these allegations, she travelled to Sudan with Keith Hill to see the situation on the ground for herself. Before this she had a general knowledge about Africa since she had a background as a historian with a focus on third world countries, but she had no specific knowledge about Sudan. During the trip she had full access to NGOs, government authorities, security personnel, and the diplomatic corps. She stated that she had a sense of full transparency, that she was able to freely ask any questions she wanted to, and that she was not coached to move in any direction.

Upon returning from the trip, she finished her report and presented it along with her recommendations to the Lundin Oil board in December 1999. After this, she was hired on a 50% retainer throughout 2000. In December 2000, she put forward a proposal about a broader approach regarding CSR within the company, which both management and the board supported. After the proposal was approved by the board she was formally hired as an employee, first in 2001 as a CSR manager and then as Vice-President of Corporate Social Responsibility from June 2002. She remained employed by the company until 2020.

The prosecutor then asked her about when she was first hired by Lundin Oil and if there was any competition for the role. Batruch responded that she was not aware if there had been any competition. She clarified that did not actually apply for a job at Lundin Oil but rather the company contacted her specifically for the role since they were well aware of her background as a trained historian and lawyer as well as her commitment to human rights. She said that it was not a formal interview: she was contacted by Adolf Lundin and then had an interview with Magnus Nordin, who hired her.

Batruch was then asked what her commitment to human rights had entailed. She said that she first attended a demonstration as a teenager for the Chilean cause. Later, she studied history with a focus on third world history, Slavic history, and colonial history. During her studies, she was a human rights director at the Ukrainian student union and president of the Ukrainian-Jewish student dialogue. She was also active in the organization CDSPP, which worked with protecting Soviet prisoners and organized demonstrations and wrote articles for the cause. These experiences made her want to study law to promote human rights. As a teenager, she was also a member of Amnesty International and later became part of a Ukrainian foundation which aimed to create institutions and promote human rights in Ukraine after independence. From 1995 she worked at the International Academy for the Environment. When asked if she had any special knowledge about the work conducted by UN special rapporteurs, she stated that while she did not have any special knowledge of their work, she had a general knowledge of the UN.  She had no previous knowledge of humanitarian law in civil wars or of the extraction of natural resources in political unstable countries.

Regarding the timing of her first employment, Batruch said that she was hired to look into the situation in Sudan and the connections between oil activities and human rights violations. At an initial meeting with Keith Hill, there were discussions about a new road being built to Thar Jath, a road whose construction allegedly led to the displacement and destruction of civilians and villages. Keith Hill showed a map which displayed the new proposed road as well as the old Chevron road. He explained that they could not use the existing Chevron road since there were villages along it and the company wanted to build a new road as not to interfere with the local population. “This gave me a signal as to the intentions of the company,” Batruch stated.

Batruch said that it was possible that she had gotten some background information about Block 5A at the meeting where she was hired. She recalled that Petroleum Security were there to determine if it was safe for the staff to travel to Block 5A and whether there was any factional fighting. When asked how she viewed the information from Petroleum Security, which could be seen as an extension of the Sudanese government, she responded that she did not get any information from them and therefore could not answer the question.

The prosecutor showed the court three different security reports, none of which Batruch could recall. She could not recall whether she had had access to the internal security reports but stated that “I had a sense that nothing was hidden from me.” The prosecutor then showed a document sent from Dick Deary which, according to the list of recipients, had been sent to Batruch. Batruch stated that as soon as she was hired as a consultant, she assumed that she received all documents that could be relevant to her work. “Ian Lundin would have told everybody that every document or information I required, I should have it.”

The prosecutor then moved on to ask Batruch about her first report produced in 1999. Batruch was officially hired for 10 days to produce the report, but she stated that “she is the kind of person that does not work on time.” She wanted to make a report as pertinent as possible. She was in Sudan for three days and before that, she had gone to the UN to conduct some research into the background and history of Sudan. The report stated that one of its purposes was to avoid bad press for the company and falling stock prices, but Batruch claimed that she saw her assignment as broader than just those two aspects.

To examine the accusations made about the connection between human rights violations and the oil sector, Batruch said that a lot of the information came from her three days in Sudan. She said that she had free access to NGOs, EU diplomats, and others. The meetings she requested were arranged by Lundin Oil and she travelled to Sudan together with Keith Hill. In Sudan she met with four different NGOs working mainly with humanitarian causes. When the prosecutor asked if she did not want to meet with organisations focused on human rights, Batruch stated that although she did not remember when, she had had contact with a representative of Human Rights Watch. She was also in contact with Talisman and discussed the allegations. The prosecutor then read an extract from Franco’s report stating that thousands of civilians had fled the area. Batruch said that the HSE denied it. She did not consider traveling to the area from which the refugees had fled. She said that Franco had not been to the area either, but had received information from “questionable sources in the south.” It would have been difficult to find refugees from Block 5A since she had no knowledge as to where these people would have gone. However, she also stated that she did not recall if she was aware of Franco’s working methods at the time.

In Batruch’s report, she wrote about various military groups and that they all received support from the government, but also that the fights were tribal fights. When asked by the prosecutor why she described it as tribal fights when the government was involved, she responded that the loyalties shifted constantly and the government’s involvement had never been supported by facts. She wrote what she believed at the time and stated that it was difficult to conclude that any group fought for anyone else but themselves.

The report responded to the allegations that oil exploration caused displacement by stating that people flee when fights occur but that there were no settlements around the planned road and operations. Batruch testified that she got this information from company representatives. The report also responded to the allegations made by Franco of aerial bombardment by the government and stated that there were report of bombings but only in restricted areas controlled by Peter Gadet. Batruch did not recall where she got this information. The report also stated that it had been confirmed that seven civilians died because of the bombing, but that this was due to the inaccurate nature of the bombing rather than the intentional targeting of civilians. Batruch said that it was of paramount importance that there was not an intent to kill civilians. She had an understanding of internation humanitarian law (IHL) but could not remember if she had analysed the situation according to IHL.

She presented the report along with her recommendations to the Lundin Oil management team and the board. She had a strong recollection that Adolf and Ian Lundin were present at the time. After this she was hired on a 50 % retainer during the year 2000 and her tasks included staying informed on the development in Sudan. She was in contact with the HSEs and reported to Ian Lundin.

The prosecutor then showed her a diary of events which included a bombing of the rig site in Thar Jath in February 2000 and a security report from Ken Barker. Batruch stated that she did not know about the events at the time and that her role was CSR and community development, not security. Batruch also stated that she did not know that the road being built was in a disputed area.

In May 2000, Batruch wrote an updated report which focused on external sources. She read reports from NGOs and tried to verify if their information was correct. She also attended a conference in Hermannsburg, Germany, which she thought shed light on this. The conference consisted of mostly Christian organisations, but Amnesty and the UN were also represented. According to Batruch, she realized that the information in the external reports was not based on facts but rather propaganda. An NGO representative proposed to end oil operations by bombing oil rigs, which she found quite disturbing. “I thought I was in a circle of people who I thought wanted to promote positive values, but I found that that was not the case.” When asked how she could determine what was factual, she said that the company had people on the ground in Rubkona and the NGOs did not have any people anywhere near the area.

The updated report stated that there were serious human rights violations in Sudan – largely, though not exclusively, attributable to the civil war. Batruch commented on this and said that armed conflicts unfortunately include human rights violations and that there were also tribal fights. Her report referenced the company’s internal security reports, but Batruch stated that she could not recall which security reports she had read during this period. The report also stated that the security for both Lundin staff and the local population was compromised. Batruch said that this was caused by an increase in tribal fights.

Former special envoy for the Canadian government John Harker’s report was also a source for Batruch’s updated report. She stated that since the report focused on Talisman, many conclusions were not applicable to Lundin Oil. The prosecutor then asked her about appendix seven to Harker’s report, which consisted of a legal analysis of crimes under IHL of which the regime could be guilty. Batruch replied that she believed she would have seen this appendix but that she did not have any specific recollection of it. Alexandre Schneiter’s defence attorney objected and stated that Harker had testified in court that the court could ignore appendices if the information was not also found in the report. The prosecutor did not agree, and the testimony continued with the witness having heard all objections. Batruch stated that she did not believe that she had seen appendix seven and that she would not have ignored it in her report if she had seen it. The prosecutor also asked her why she did not include a full quote by Harker in her report to which Batruch responded, “I do not recall, but it was certainly not to hide anything.”

When asked how human rights violations committed by the government in Block 5A would be handled, Batruch answered that she did not know to what crimes the prosecutor was referring. The HSE staff on the ground would have had knowledge if anything like this had occurred and would have reported back. The management in Khartoum were responsible for following up and different people in Geneva and Khartoum would have then questioned the Sudanese government.

The first day finished with the prosecutor showing an email from Dick Deary containing information from Talisman that could have been relevant for Lundin Oil’s operations. He also wrote that it was highly likely that a bombing of the village Nhialdhiu had occurred and that the civilian population had fled. When asked what she would have done with that information, Batruch stated that she would have looked at the situation between different groups since Block 5A was under control of the Nuer people, who had their own agenda. At the time, she thought that Gadet was an ally of SPLA and that the conflict in the area was an extension of the civil war which had nothing to do with the oil operations. 

Day 2 

The prosecutions questions about Deary’s email continued during the second day. Batruch did not recall if she contacted the management or the board about the bombing in Block 5A. After this the prosecutor shifted focus to Batruch’s second report, in which she had presented four different strategies: 1. Business as usual, 2. pull out from the country, 3. cooperate with NGOs regarding the alleged human rights violations, and 4. temporary withdrawal from the country. She could not recall precisely if there were any discussions in the company about which strategy should be adopted when she presented them. However, she added that from both her perspective and the company’s, it was clear that business as usual should not be the strategy adopted.

Asked how that became clear, Batruch responded that her comments were based on media and the general perception rather than facts. She wrote the report after meeting with several NGOs and attending the conference in Hermannsburg, and she believed that although the accusations were serious, they were not based on fact and did not reflect the real situation on the ground. “The forgotten war in Sudan became, through the general perception, about oil.”  As Batruch had previously stated that it was difficult for her to find primary sources and eyewitnesses, the prosecutor asked why Lundin Oil did not hire a security company to investigate. Batruch answered that HSE filled that role. When asked whether HSE searched for people who had fled to gain firsthand knowledge of what was happening, Batruch responded that they had various interactions with various people in various places. If any accusations were made, the HSE would do their very best to examine matters that could be relevant for the areas where the company had operations. Batruch was then asked her opinion on the potential human rights violations and effects on civilians that she had described in her report. “My opinion was that conflict creates insecurity, which has an impact for civilians.”

Batruch stated that she did not discuss the report with anyone when she wrote the second report and that it was based on her own reflections. She believed that she presented the report to the management group via email, although she could not remember to whom she sent it. When asked if Ian Lundin had read the report, Batruch responds that he must have.

Her tasks after she had presented her report consisted of staying updated on new reports and meeting with NGOs, politicians, and diplomats. During this period, former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt joined the board of the company. To Batruch’s recollection, she first met him at a board meeting in December 2000 where she proposed ways in which the company could continue the CSR work. The prosecutor then asked Batruch about an OCM and a JCM meeting which took place in 2000, but Batruch said that she was not involved in any preparatory work for these meetings.  The prosecutor showed pictures which had been presented during these meetings that depicted the Sudanese government’s alliance with militia groups in a positive light. Batruch stated that she did not know about these pictures.

On 28 August 2000, Ian Glendinning wrote a Sudan update reporting that the army and the coalition forces were preparing to carry out an offensive push to the south, which could lead to a dramatic increase in hostilities in the area.  Batruch did not recall this specific document.  The prosecutor then asked Batruch if she would define these fights, in which the government was involved, as tribal fights as she previously had. Batruch did not want to comment without having the opportunity to analyse the whole document. The prosecutor then asked her how, based on the information in the document, she would classify these fights. The defence then objected and asked for the page to be read in its entirety. It stated that the reports about a military offensive to the south contradicted other reports about peace talks and a dialogue with Gadet.  It also stated that while both reports may be true, if Gadet would accept a peace treaty it would likely be to reestablish his forces for future attacks as he had shown in the past that he was unlikely to accept a truce. Therefore, the reports suggested a dramatic increase in hostilities in the area and the possibility of a worsening of the IDP situation in Bentiu in the near future.

Batruch was then asked the same question again: how she would describe this type of fighting. She stated that it was very difficult to evaluate the situation and there was the Khartoum Peace Agreement between the tribes and the regime, and it was in the company’s primary interest, and first and foremost it was the primary interest of the local population, that there would be peace. She continued that it was obvious when reading the document that all parties had an interest in peace and that it was very complicated to put a label on a very complex situation.

Glendinning had also written that the situation for internally displaced people (IDP) could worsen. Batruch did not remember this information but said that during later years, community development medical staff would take care of IDPs. The report stated that the number of IDPs could be 70 000. Batruch did not recall this number but added that in general, at different times for different reasons, there would be many IDPs. The prosecutor then showed more of Glendinning’s report and asked Batruch if she remembered more about the company’s efforts to address the situation. “I cannot recall this, but at the time I would have read the report like this: It is a very complex situation, efforts are made to achieve peace in the area. As a consequence of the company’s wish to affect in a positive way efforts are being made on the humanitarian front.”

The prosecutor then showed another report from Glendinning, from 4 September 2000 which included reports that Paulino Matiep’s troops were expecting a large delivery of ammunition from Khartoum.  The prosecutor recalled that Batruch had said the day before that she did not have any knowledge of evidence of weapon deliveries to the militias and asked if she had seen this report.  Batruch responded that she could remember but that she did not view this report as evidence since it just said that it had been reported, not that it happened. In the same report, Glendinning also wrote that two-thirds of the IDPs would stay in the area since they had nowhere to return to as everything has been destroyed. Asked if she had any knowledge about civilian property being damaged, Batruch could not remember this event but repeated that conflict creates insecurities for the population and people move to protect themselves. At the time she noticed that the IDPs were moving closer to the base in Rubkona, which to her signaled that they felt safer closer to the Lundin operations and not threatened by them.

Glendinning sent an email to Batruch on 26 September 2000, writing that construction had started again on the all-weather road to Thar Jath. The email also stated that the number of heavy weapons along the rig road held by the army had been scaled down, although the number of soldiers appeared to be the same and that the weapons were being moved because they were needed for clashes further west between Matiep and Gadet. The prosecutor then asked Batruch if she agreed that the government was supporting militia groups and the SPLA through Gadet at this time. The judge broke in to note that the prosecutor could ask questions but not make agreements with a witness, and the prosecutor then reframed her question. Batruch said that she would describe the situation as there being an agreement between military groups and the government, the KPA, to maintain peace in the area, but there was also a rebel faction. She added that it was not a fact that Gadet had an alliance with SPLA as the alliances shifted at various times for different reasons.

From January 2001, Batruch started working from the company’s office in Geneva, where Ian Lundin was also based. She recalled that Adolf Lundin came to her office daily for updates but did not remember her interactions with Ian since he travelled more frequently.  She received internal reports from the HSE staff via email, and she kept herself updated on external reports. When asked if she conducted any security analyses regarding Block 5A in 2001, she responded that her task was less about security and more about the impact on people and what the company could do about it. She monitored the situation in Block 5A but did not have access to the whole block since there were no roads except Lundin’s. Batruch said that the block was the size of two-thirds of Switzerland and her focus was on the situation around their operations. The HSE in Rubkhona had primary responsibility for monitoring the security situation. Later, the community development team would maintain contact with the local population in addition to providing medical and veterinary care. Until July 2001, the HSE did the main work with community development.

The prosecutor then moved on to the Christian Aid report “The Scorched Earth.” Batruch said that she was in Sudan to hire a community development officer and was at Sue Garoud’s office at German Agro Action when she received the report. She assumed she had received the report from Ian but was not sure. Batruch had previously heard that a representative for Christian Aid wanted to meet with her while they were both attending a conference in Germany, but the representative never made time for a meeting. The last morning of the conference, Batruch waited for three hours to meet with the representative who never showed. Batruch said that as a human rights activist she could not understand why the representative would not meet with her and tell her to stop, given the allegations in the report.  “During my youth I organized demonstrations for much less than this!” She said that she was in shock when she received the report as it was nothing like the information she got from the HSE staff. She thought that an independent NGO could help her get to the bottom of it so she discussed the report with Sue Garoud, and together they could soon dismiss the allegations. Garoud explained that there had been factional fighting along the old Chevron road, not by the Lundin road. Batruch returned to Geneva that evening and she remembered that everyone at the office was looking at the report.

Glendinning sent an email about the Christian Aid report to Batruch on 20 March 2001, noting that the road construction had stopped on 7 August 2000. When it restarted a few weeks later, HSE travelled the road on a regular basis and did not report any signs of burnt villages. He added that the army was obviously further ahead of Heglig Construction Company but did not know how far ahead. The prosecutor asked Batruch if they had control over the areas further down the road. She said that they did not, but since there was no evidence of burnt villages on the first stretch of the road, they had no reason to suspect that the situation would be different further down. The military was there to offer protection from the rebels, not, as the Christian Aid report stated, to clear the area. “Why would we want a community development programme if we wanted to clear the area?” she asked rhetorically.

Batruch said that she did not know why the road construction stopped in August 2000. Glendinning also wrote that the only group currently fighting was Gadet’s, and described a number of clashes and bombings, as well as forced displacement of civilians, caused by Gadet. He had become an independent commander at this time, with all other groups against him. Batruch commented that at the time she saw that most of the commanders wanted peace and that Gadet seemed to be an ally to SPLA at one time, but then according to the report became an independent contractor. For her, this showed how complex the situation was and that the causes of the disputes between the various groups were unclear. When asked what she thought about the information that fighting was ongoing during the initial construction of the road, Batruch replied that she looked at various sources to get an overview of the situation, including the HSE reports and what Sue Garoud and Bol Gatkuoth, a Nuer contact from the area, told her.

The prosecutor then asked Batruch about a March 2000 security report stating that the fighting was caused by the militia groups opposing the Sudanese regime, and reporting bombings in the south to stop Gadet. Batruch replied that it was difficult for her to remember details about events that happened 25 years ago but that she believed that she would not have recognized names as Rier and Duar at the time. However, she remembers that Bol Gatkuoth looked over the report with her and compared it to the information he had got from people on the ground. He said thar Rier was not at the location the Christian Aid report had stated that it was. When reading the report Batruch said that she did not see any connection to the oil operations. “There is clarity that there were fights, but this report seems to say that we have a rogue element, Gadet, creating havoc and all else was to try to stop him.”

Batruch could not comment on the Sudanese army’s behaviour in regard to the bombings, except to say that obviously war and bombs are horrific and there was a civil war further south which had negative consequences. Under the leadership of Carl Bildt, the company communicated with the Sudanese government and expressed concern about the methods of war and the accusations. The company’s position was that human rights violations were unacceptable. She also added that they were a small company and they were not involved with the war between the north and the south. Glendinning also wrote about civilians having fled and the prosecutor wondered what Batruch did to examine how the civilians had been affected by the fighting. Batruch said that it was a natural part of the work in Rubkona to keep track of what happened on the ground. Batruch said that there was no doubt that she would have spoken to Ian Lundin at the time and that he always instructed her to find out what had really happened. “He would not stand for human rights violations in regard to our activity.”

The questioning then turned to Batruch’s contacts with UN special rapporteur Gerhard Baum during 2001. She remembered having initiated a number of meetings with him. In March of 2001 she met with him together with Ian Lundin. Ian Lundin wrote a letter to Baum in March 2001 inviting him to Block 5A as the company had a deep conviction that if he saw the situation on the ground, his assessment of the situation would be different. Baum had been in Unity State but not in Block 5A. Batruch stated that he was receiving third party reports and that he lacked firsthand knowledge. During the meeting with Ian, Baum expressed that he was under a lot of pressure from NGOs. An email after the meeting referenced a video being shown for Baum, but Batruch could not recall which one. This email was sent to Carl Bildt and Alexandre Schneitre.

On 29 March 2001, in his oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, Baum stated that the Sudanese government was forcing villages to relocate, that areas around Nhialdhiu had been ruined, and that harvests had been burned. He said that oil exploitation had led to an exacerbation of the conflict with serious consequences for civilians and that planned roads would likely lead to more villages being burnt. He did not mention Block 5A explicitly. “As it did not relate to Block 5A, I did not reflect upon it more than being saddened by the fact that war is brutal,” Batruch said. Asked if she was worried that indiscriminate bombing, which Baum had reported, would be used in Block 5A. Batruch responded that the the company was concerned but did not see any such bombings.

The prosecutor then noted the government’s accidental bombing of the Thar Jath rig site using Antonov bombers in February 2000 and that the Christian Aid report had reported that civilians in Block 5A had experienced Antonov bombings. Batruch stated that she did not have this information at the time and that the explanation for the bombing was that it indeed was a mistake and that there was never any indication of who the intended target was, nor that civilians had been impacted.  When asked about the report that villages and harvests had been ruined, Batruch said that if she remembered correctly, Ian Lundin had travelled along the road with a journalist, and they did not see any burned villages or anything else that had been reported. “Our approach was transparency and openness; we invited everyone to come to the ground to see the situation with their own eyes.” Batruch said that the HSE personnel was in the block during the construction of the road and they had contact with people in the area, so they could be sure that no villages had been burnt during that period either.

To respond to the allegations in the Christian Aid report, the company produced the report “Lundin Oil in Sudan” in May 2001. Different people were involved with producing the report: Schneiter was responsible for the operational part while Batruch wrote the historical part and did the rebuttal to the Christian Aid report together with Bol Gatkuoth. Various others were involved in the editing process. Batruch did not believe that Ian Lundin wrote any parts of the report but did provide comments. The report also referenced “fact finding missions” which Batruch explained referred to the multiple initiatives the company undertook, including the HSE, Batruch’s questions to people on the ground, and Ian Lundin’s trip to Block 5A.

Batruch was then asked about Bol Gatkuoth. She said that he was a Nuer refugee living in London and that she was always looking for communication with Nuer people since Block 5 A was “Nuer Land.” Therefore, she was interested in what they had to say. She could recall how long he had been a refugee in England or when he left Sudan. At the time, there were no maps showing all the villages in the area and Bol Gatkuoth assisted with providing information about the names of villages. He was also in contact with people from Block 5A and Batruch went over the Christian Aid report with him, line by line. He was not cited as a source for the company’s report because the report was meant to be distributed widely, so they referenced sources that were widely known. He, like Sue Garoud, provided information such as villages where events had supposedly taken place. This information became a part of the report.

The prosecutor then continued reading extracts from the “Lundin Oil in Sudan” report and asked Batruch why she did not include the fact that the military and SSUM entered Block 5A in May 1999, in violation of the KPA. Batruch said that this was just an overview of the events and that they addressed accusations in a different part of the report. She did not know why the report did not address the accidental bombing of Thar Jath. The prosecutor also asked why the report claimed that the construction of the road ceased in May 2000 because of the rainy season and did not mention the security issues mentioned in several internal reports. Batruch said that before and after that paragraph they had written about fractional fighting, so they had addressed it.

The prosecution then displayed the report side by side with the Christian Aid report to show the differences. In one example, both reports mentioned an attack on the village of Chotyel in October 1999. The Christian Aid report included a description of the attack by an 80-year-old villager who described how he ran to the forest with six of his grandchildren to seek refuge. Soldiers came to the village and helicopters flew over and killed anyone they saw. The villager added that they were forcing the road through the village to the oil field in Thar Jath. While the Lundin report agreed that the village was attacked, it stated that the village was located near the old oil road, over 10 km from the all-weather road, and that the village still exists. Batruch said that she got information about the village from Sue Garoud and that there were problems between two tribes who lived on separate sides of the old Chevron Road.

Another point at issue was an attack on the village Dorbor in March 2000 in which government troops attacked the village using Antonov planes and helicopter gunships. The Christian Aid report noted that the village was located near the start of the all-weather road. Lundin Oil’s report, however, stated that the village was located a few kilometers from the road and that the attack possibly could have taken place since there were inter-factional fighting at the time. The Lundin report also argued that since there was a village located in the area, it again showed that there was no intent to clear the area but rather to repel the rebels. The prosecutor asked Batruch if it was considered inter-factional fighting when Antonov planes were used. Batruch said that there was factional fighting and because of the KPA it was possible that a particular faction or militia could have received support from the government. She added that she was not a military expert and did not have any knowledge of the precision of Antonov bombers, but that conflicts have awful implications for civilians. She emphasized, however, that she did not at the time, and does not today, believe that the government tried to harm civilians.

More differences between the reports were displayed and Batruch was asked to explain how she could say that some events did not take place. Batruch objected to this characterization and said that she did not say that events did not take place but rather that the report was about the company’s role in the conflict. “The rebuttal was to look into whether certain events had taken place and if they were in any way related to our presence there.” The last event that was discussed was the attacks on Nhialdiu. The Christian Aid report included a source describing how the military gathered people in huts and burned them alive. Batruch wrote in her report that “people found near Nhialdiu couldn’t all be considered as neutral civilians as Nhialdiu is a logistics base for rebel factions,” and that civilians in the area could be family members of the rebels. The prosecutor then asked if she meant that everyone in Nhialdiu could be attacked since they were close to Gadet. She responded that no one should ever be attacked for any reason but what the company was trying to show with the report was that the source of the quote had a clear agenda, which made it hard for them to determine whether what he was saying was true.

Communication with Carl Bildt

The interrogation then continued with questions about Batruch’s communication and meetings with Carl Bildt. Bildt wrote about the situation in Sudan in emails to Batruch and Ian Lundin, describing the situation in Sudan as worsening quickly and the SPLA having had significant success, which would likely be met by increasingly unacceptable methods from the Sudanese government. However, he had not received any reports about problems in the areas where Lundin had operations. Bildt also warned that oil operations would be direct targets in the conflict and predicted that the SPLA would try to attack. He also noted that there would be a media war in international media. Batruch said that Bildt was referring to the media war when he wrote that the situation was worsening. She also remembered that the SPLA said that oil operations were legitimate military targets, but she reminded the court that they were not present in Block 5A. She believed that Bildt’s references to the government’s unacceptable methods concerned areas in the west and noted that Lundin was not responsible for areas outside of their operations.

In another email, Bildt addressed statements made by the EU, UN and international media, saying that the company should not be seen as defending the Sudanese government, who had committed attacks and indiscriminate bombings. Batruch said that Bildt did not have any first-hand knowledge of the situation but rather was conveying what he had heard from the public debate and the media. “This does not confirm that the events took place but of course an email like that would raise concern and would generate discussions with various people on the ground,” she stated.

Batruch was then questioned about a meeting with UNICEF where they discussed how the situation in Upper Nile had worsened dramatically. The only way there for humanitarian aid is by air, but the air space has been closed by the Sudanese government. The situation was acceptable up until the KPA, according to UNICEF. NGOs are not allowed to enter most areas which makes people move to government-controlled areas to get support by NGOs. Batruch was not aware of the flight ban before this meeting. She said that people moving to places controlled by the government to get humanitarian aid shows that they were not afraid of the government and that they did not feel like targets.

The last topic of the day was the construction of roads being planned in new areas during 2002. Batruch said that she was not aware of, nor involved with, the plans to construct a road to Nhialdiu. To her recollection, in 2002 the company had suspended operations pending a sustainable peace, so her main task was to focus on the community development work and peace advocacy together with Carl Bildt.  

Day 3

The prosecution started the third day of the hearing by asking Batruch about the risk assessments done for a planned road to Leer in 2001. She that she was not involved with those assessments since she took part in political risk assessments while security was outside her scope. Asked if any special risk assessment had been done for the planned road, Batruch replied that a political risk assessment was carried out on a continuous basis.

The prosecution then turned to the 2001 incident in which a company helicopter was shot at while flying in the block. Batruch recalled that after this, Ian Lundin travelled to the block and had a meeting with the military and the Minister of Energy in Sudan. While she could not remember the details, she said that she gave Ian Lundin news updates on a continuous basis.  The company then made a deal with the government to fund the construction of the road to Leer, which would then be reimbursed after the construction was finished. Batruch could not remember if she had any contact with anyone in the company about this deal.

In January 2002, Ken Barker produced a report about the security situation in Sudan during this time, in which he concluded that the situation was very volatile and not conducive to oil field operations. He also wrote that the conflict would probably be ongoing for many years and that oilfield operations were a military target. Batruch did not recall the specific report, but remembered that the company’s operations were suspended in January 2002 pending a sustainable peace. To her recollection, she did another trip to Sudan with Carl Bildt during this time to hold meetings with different actors regarding the possibility of peace. While the SPLA had previously said that oil rigs were a legitimate military target, Batruch said that the company was not affected since they were not in a production phase. While operations were stopped, the community development staff continued their work and became her main source on the ground. They were based in Rubkona but travelled to the block.

Asked why she was not involved with the project to build a road to Leer, since the road was important for the community development work, Batruch said that she recalled having discussions in an early stage with the commissioner of Leer, who several times requested a road. She testified that she would have had discussions regarding this but not about the construction itself since that was an operational matter.

The prosecution asked Batruch about the Danforth report, written by John Danforth, the US special envoy for peace in Sudan. Danforth noted that while there was some progress toward peace, the Sudanese government refused to stop bombing hospitals, schools, and other civilian targets. Batruch did not recall taking part in this report.

Batruch and Bildt had meetings in January 2002 with the US charge d’affairs, Ray Brown, with Sudanese president Al-Bashir and a peace advisor to the Sudanese government. Asked if they discussed aerial bombardments, Batruch said that they expressed that aerial bombardments were unacceptable to Lundin Oil and that they promoted peace negotiations. She also remembered that Carl Bildt said that, “As an oil company we need sustainable peace acquired by sustainable means.” When asked if there were any discussions about whether they could continue to cooperate with the Sudanese government, Batruch said that this question was not applicable since the company did not have ongoing operations at the time. When the prosecution pointed out that there were still plans to build the road to Leer, Batruch said that all plans like that depended on achieving a sustainable peace.

In May 2002, various people received new assignments in Lundin Petroleum following the sale of Lundin Oil to Talisman. Ian Lundin became CEO and Alexandre Schneiter became COO, although here Schneiter’s defence attorney objected to this description, saying that they did not agree with the prosecution’s statement that he had started his new role at that point in time. With these changes, Ashley Heppenstall became Batruch’s immediate manager. When asked what this meant for her relationship with Ian, Batruch tried to remember whether Ian Lundin even changed his office space and said that formally Ashley was her boss. She did not believe that her relationship with Schneiter changed. The prosecution took up a document from late May 2002 written by Batruch and titled “Notes to Ian.” Asked why she wrote this when she was supposed to report to Heppenstall, Batruch answered that “[I]t was not a matter of reporting but it would be information for Ian so he’s aware.”

In the email she wrote that there was heavy fighting in Block 5A, which had been confirmed by both the company staff and by NGOs like Doctors Without Borders. According to the media, both sides had broken the agreement to protect the civilian population. Batruch proposed meetings for the company to hold and a position for the company to take on the situation, one of which was to make clear that it was unacceptable for Lundin Oil’s infrastructure to be used for military purposes. Asked about this, Batruch said that several reports indicated that oil infrastructure was used for military means and the company wanted to make clear that their infrastructure had not, and should not, be used for military purposes.

During the police raid on the company during the investigation, prosecutors obtained reports from OMV. Batruch stated that they were doing the same thing she did between 1999 and 2000: trying to find out the facts about the allegations against the oil industry. The prosecutors then asked her if she was independent during her reviews of the company. “From 1999 until 2000 I was independent as I was an external consultant; from 2001 forward, I was employed by the company.”

To conclude their examination, the prosecution showed a final security report from Barker from September 2002 in which he wrote that the security situation in the block was completely unacceptable, but despite this the government was pushing for the continuation of the road construction to Leer. The road construction had been attacked twice by the local SSIM militia group. Five workers were killed and another five were injured. Barker added that even with the ongoing “clearing process” which had already led to many civilians having fled, the government would never be able to fully secure the area. Batruch said that she could not recall having any specific discussions with Barker about this report and that she was also under the impression that the company was not building the road to Leer.

The plaintiffs’ counsel 

Percy Bratt questioned Batruch about her and her family’s relation to Adolf Lundin. Batruch said that Adolf Lundin was a student of her father’s and they developed a friendship over the years. He was also on the board of an organisation that her father started and Batruch was a secretary for the board, so she met him in this capacity. When her previous job ended, she reached out to Adolf Lundin who asked for her CV, and they had a meeting in which she presented her qualifications.

Bratt then asked Batruch about the Khartoum Peace Agreement. Batruch agreed that the KPA was important for Lundin’s operations in the block and that at the time, they all believed it was sustainable. At the time, EU countries recognized positive steps taken by the Sudanese government with their new constitution and the evolution of civil law. When asked how she would describe Sudan in terms of democracy and respect for international law, Batruch answered that it was a rogue [ER1] state but that the government adopted several steps, like the constitution, which signalled that they were progressing into a fairer society. Bratt asked what she would say if he described the country as an Islamist military dictatorship, to which Batruch said that yes, the government rose to power via a military coup. When asked if bombardment by Antonov planes constituted a violation of international humanitarian law, she said that it was a method of war and that it was unacceptable if civilians were affected, adding: “Carl Bildt communicated this several times and since he was a former minister people listened to him.” When pressed further, she said that in principle, it would be a violation of IHL.

Batruch was also asked to which clan Bol Gatkuoth belonged. Batruch said that he was a Nuer and that she did not recall looking into clans at that time. Bratt then asked if this made it hard to trust his information to which Batruch said that she didn’t think so.

Anders Sjögren, representing another group of plaintiffs, continued the interrogation and asked Batruch about UN special rapporteurs Gerhard Baum and Leonard Franco, as well as about the reports Batruch produced. He asked her about her recollection of whether Gerhard Baum had been in Sudan before his oral statement in March 2001. She said that she believed that he had not gone to the oil fields or been in Unity State. Sjögren then asked about the pressure from NGOs Batruch had described Baum being under. She testified that he described them in general as Christian NGOs, but did not recall how they had pressured him.

Baum wrote a text published on 23 January 2002 in which he stated that he received an invitation from the regime and Lundin Oil and that he then visited Bentiu, Panjang, and Rubkona in Unity State. Batruch said that she was present during his visit and that they also invited him to Block 5A, but he unfortunately did not have time to go there. The company wanted him to gain firsthand knowledge of the block and sent him a letter expressing their profound regret that he did not visit.

Batruch said that the first report of Leonardo Franco that she read was the one from 1999. The company did not invite him to the block because she was not able to get his contact information, but she was in contact with Georgia Passarelli who wrote all the UN reports, and she invited her to come to the office in Geneva if she had any questions, but Passarelli never did.

Sjögren then asked Batruch about her first report from December 1999, for which she was hired for a period of ten days to complete. He asked if that time was for both gathering information and writing the report. Batruch responded that when she was hired, she said that she would need ten days but that she did not count the days she worked on the report. She had her first meeting in October and delivered the report in December. During this period, she used all her professional time on the report.

For her report of May 2001, the company used the time between the publication of the Christian Aid report in March and that of their own report in May to gather information, meet people, travel on site, and draft the report. The main target audience was the company’s shareholders and press at the shareholder meeting, but Batruch believed that it was also published online. She explained that the reason the report does not identify a particular author was because it was a company report and various people contributed to it. She could not be sure whether Ian Lundin had provided information for the report but was certain that he had read the report and the drafts. When asked whether Schneiter participated in the process, she replied that she was “not sure if he did personally or someone in his team did, but the section about the operational activities was not written by me.” She did not see any issues with the report being written by the company itself. Asked if any part of the report had proven to be wrong and if she still stood behind the report, she responded: “I would have to reread the whole report to see if there are any elements there. I stand behind what the report, in essence, said.”

Lundin’s defence cross-examination

Lundin’s defence attorney Torgny Wetterberg started by asking Batruch how many times she had been in Sudan. She said that she had been there 5-10 times and at the rig site about five times. She was not certain whether she had seen the block during both the dry and rainy seasons, but had been there in March, July, and October. She described Block 5A, saying that it was sparsely populated along the road and the landscape depended on the season. It was very dry but very green along the river, so she would see green patches when she flew over.  

Asked to describe the differences between her first report in December 1999 and her second report in May 2000, she said that they had had the same purpose of finding out what had really happened, but that the first report was based on desk research, on her trip to Sudan, and on interviews and reports, while the second report was based on external reports and the conference in Hermannsburg she attended. During the conference, she heard how an NGO representative talked about attacking oil operations. While she did not recall anyone agreeing, she was shocked that someone from the SPLA thanked the speaker for his proposal and no one objected. She had expected to gather information at the conference but instead found that it was an advocacy conference and no evidence was provided to substantiate the allegations made. When she questioned the Amnesty International representative about their May 2000 report, they were not sure if the person who had written the report had been in Sudan.

Wetterberg then asked Batruch about the measures the company took to assess the allegations made in the Christian Aid report and if anyone she spoke to thought that any of the allegations regarding villages being destroyed to allow the road construction were true. “No,” she said. She concluded that she was uncomfortable with the methodology used by Christian Aid in developing the report, saying they had not made the time to meet with her or the company during the time during which the alleged crimes would have been committed according to their report. She added that Christian Aid did not do anything about the violations they reported – they did not mount a campaign or a protest and did not call on the company to stop its activities but instead waited to publish a report in March when they were collecting donations.

When asked why she believes these reports came out, she replied that she could only venture a guess. Wetterberg insisted that she reply, leading Batruch to turn to the judge to ask if she had to respond.  Judge Zander advised her that she did not have to speculate but that she was welcome to share her thoughts on the issue. She answered: “I felt that various NGOs wanted to bring light to a forgotten war in Africa. And for what was a noble cause they used unethical means.”

Wetterberg then asked about how Egbert Wesselink from Pax treated facts about South Sudan. Batruch said that Wesselink displayed maps and photos of roads that had been built in Block 5A during a conference in South Sudan in 2015. Batruch questioned him and said that no roads had been built in the block at that time, to which Wesselink then replied that it might have been in another area.

The topic then changed to the various meetings Batruch had with diplomats. She said that she met diplomats from many countries, including the UK, Sweden, and Italy, among others They were aware of the allegations, but no one believed them, which affected Batruch’s view. She was also in contact multiple times with the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and provided updates on the company’s activities and what was happening. The company also invited the Swedish foreign minister to Block 5A, but the visit never took place. She testified that the company was very frustrated that the government did not get firsthand information about the situation on the ground.

Wetterberg then showed the preparatory document the company prepared for Amnesty with Barker’s comments. Barker wrote that he felt safe in the block and that it was only recently that atrocities had been confirmed to have taken place in the block. Batruch said that Barker lacked knowledge about how reports from NGO work and that when he wrote “confirmed” he meant that the incidents had been mentioned in reports.

Batruch then described the company’s community development work, which she was responsible for. The team consisted of five doctors, two veterinarians, and a coordinator in Khartoum. The doctors were on rotation in different parts of the block and did not have guards accompanying them as they felt very safe. They treated 200 patients a day in tent clinics and made assessments of what aid the company could provide. At the initiative of the doctors and veterinarians, they also trained midwifes, para-doctors, para-vets and others. The staff reported weekly and monthly to Batruch and she said that if they would have seen signs of burned villages, they would have called her immediately, which they never did. After the Christian Aid report, Batruch herself travelled to the area. Wetterberg asked her if she recalled that they had built a dirt road to Leer, which she did not. 

Wetterberg then asked Batruch about the company’s code of conduct which was adopted in the beginning of 2001. Batruch had spent the year 2000 studying Sudan and recommended to the Lundin Oil board that the company take a broader approach to CSR. Her first assignment under this new approach was to develop a code of conduct. The code was mandatory: Ian Lundin sent it to all the employees worldwide and Batruch remembered holding a presentation on it for the Sudan staff in 2001. The code of conduct included a commitment to encourage employment of indigenous people, which meant that whenever possible the company would hire local people and provide job training, enabling them to acquire skills. The company also trained the staff in human rights and gave the security personnel the UN Principles of law enforcement. Batruch testified that there were no violations of the code. 

Cross-examination by Schneiter’s defence 

Schneiter’s defence attorney Olle Kullinger had only a few control questions for Batruch, mostly confirming where she got certain information included in her reports. The final question was about the Christian Aid report, in which a witness reported that his village was burned and that there were bulldozers preparing for a road. Since the report was published in May 2000, Kullinger pointed out that this incident could not have occurred later than that. He noted that there was no road construction ongoing at that time and whether Batruch had thought of that, to which she responded that she could not recall and suggested that “[M]aybe it is in our rebuttal?”

With these questions, the testimony of Christine Batruch was complete. Next week, the court will hear from two former Lundin Oil employees: Chris Ward, a communications engineer, and the recorded testimony of Brent Dodd, a logistics manager.