By Feiza Ben Mohamed and Seyma Yigit
International anti-corruption group Sherpa has described the decision to try French cement giant Lafarge and its executives for "financing terrorist organizations" during their operations in Syria as a "victory."
Sherpa's lawyer, Anna Kiefer, who is involved in the case, spoke to Anadolu about the upcoming trial of the company's executives. Charges stem from allegations that Lafarge financed various armed groups, including the Daesh/ISIS terror group, to maintain operations at its Syrian cement plant amid the ongoing civil war.
"This is a step toward victory because, according to Sherpa, it will be the first time a French company and its executives will be held accountable in court for financing terrorist groups," Kiefer said.
Underlining that multinational corporations "are not above the law," Kiefer said "those who finance terrorism through their activities and fuel conflicts in foreign countries must be held accountable for their actions."
She noted that the fact that Lafarge and its executives were being tried for financing a terrorist organization after nearly eight years of investigation was already a "victory" for the plaintiffs, but added that they should also be tried for "complicity in crimes against humanity."
"For us, the most important thing is to recognize Lafarge's complicity in the actions carried out by these (terror) groups," Kiefer said.
Lafarge and four former executives, including two who oversaw security at the Syrian facility and Syrian businessman Firas Tlass, face charges of financing a terror enterprise and violating a European embargo.
While the trial addresses the financing of terrorism, an investigation into Lafarge’s alleged complicity in crimes against humanity continues.
The French Supreme Court previously acknowledged the seriousness of the charges, emphasizing that "the multiplication of acts of complicity enables crimes against humanity."
Sherpa and ECCHR remain committed to supporting the plaintiffs in their pursuit of justice and reparation, underscoring the struggle for accountability in the landmark case.