Unknown – Illegal trade of minerals

Last modified : 20/04/2026

Country of prosecution
Nationality of the suspect
Switzerland
Gender of the suspect
N/A
Status of the suspect
N/A
Status of the procedure
Case closed
Alleged crimes / charges
War crimes
Verdict / decision
Case dismissed
Individual / company
Individual
Economic actor
Jurisdictional basis
Active personality jurisdiction
Complaint filed in
2016
Investigation started in
2018
Year of the verdict (First instance) / decision
2025
Length of the procedure (in years)
9


Facts

In a 2009 United Nations report from experts on the DRC, Swiss businessman Christoph Huber was described as having been involved in the large-scale transport of coltan out of DRC and Rwanda when Rwandan-backed armed group Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie-Goma (Rally for Congolese Democracy–Goma, or RCD-Goma) occupied much of Eastern Congo during the Second Congo War (1998-2003).

In 2001, the company he represented was presumably granted four mining concessions by an official body of RCD-Goma, including guarantees of protection by troops of the armed group.

Procedure

TRIAL International and the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) started investigating the case in 2013. The two organizations filed a criminal denunciation in November 2016 against Huber for his alleged involvement in the illegal exploitation and trade of minerals from Eastern parts of the DRC controlled by the RCD-Goma during the Second Congo War, activities that could constitute the war crime of pillage.

The Office of the Attorney General opened a criminal investigation in March 2018. The case was made public in 2019.

In May 2025, the Office of the Attorney General closed the investigation and dismissed the case.

Last modified : 20/04/2026

Country of prosecution
Nationality of the suspect
Switzerland
Gender of the suspect
N/A
Status of the suspect
N/A
Status of the procedure
Case closed
Alleged crimes / charges
War crimes
Verdict / decision
Case dismissed
Individual / company
Individual
Economic actor
Jurisdictional basis
Active personality jurisdiction
Complaint filed in
2016
Investigation started in
2018
Year of the verdict (First instance) / decision
2025
Length of the procedure (in years)
9