Menú principal

Destacamos

Enlaces

Suscripciones

Documento 1 Inicio / Buscar Volver a la lista        Primera de las palabras buscadas dentro del texto Imprimir documento

Total de documentos 1
Título:  BANKS, ARMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Índice AI:  « EUR32100016 »
Referencia:  EUR32100016-27194
Editor:  Amnistía Internacional Luxemburgo
Autor:  Amnistía Internacional Luxemburgo
Fecha publicación:  20160129
Tema principal:  LUXEMBURGO
Descriptores:  Transeferencias militares de seguridad y policiales · Normas internacionales de derechos humanos
Resumen / Descripción:  En promedio, por lo menos medio millón de personas mueren cada año y millones más resultan heridas, violadas y obligadas a huir de sus hogares como consecuencia del comercio mundial mal regulado de armas y municiones. La proliferación de armas y su distribución no controlada es una amenaza continua que ningún país puede escapar, si esta violencia es infligida por las fuerzas armadas del Estado, grupos armados no estatales o civiles.
Grado de seguridad:  Nivel 1
Subtipo de documentos:  Informe temático
Tipo de documento:  Documentación
Idioma:  Inglés
Enlace:  Armas
Texto:        Ocultar texto completo)

BANKS, ARMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Amnesty International Luxembourg Publications First published in 2016 by Amnesty
International Luxembourg Amnesty International Luxembourg 23, rue des Etats-Unis
L-1019 Luxembourg Luxembourg www.amnesty.lu © Amnesty International Luxembourg
Publications 2016 Original language: English Printed by Amnesty International
Luxembourg, Luxembourg ISBN: 978-99959-895-0-7 All rights reserved. This publication
is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy,
campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. The copyright holders
that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For
copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or
for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from
the publishers, and a fee may be payable. To request permission, or for any
other inquiries, please contact e-mail@amnesty.lu

Cover photo: © REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters,
members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign
to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy
all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
international human rights standards. We are independent of any government,
political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by
our membership and public donations.

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................
...........
5

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S POSITION ON ARMS ......................................................
11

FOREWORD ........................................................................................................
.......
12

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................
.....
13

I. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THIS REPORT .................................................
16

A. OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................
16

B. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................
17

1. The case of Luxembourg: a local illustration of a global problem ................................
17

2. Presentation of the banks in the sample ..............................................................
19

3. Conduct of the research ..................................................................................
21

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO ARMS-RELATED FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES .........
22

A. DOMESTIC PROVISIONS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITING SPECIFIC ARMS-RELATED FINANCIAL
ACTIVITIES ...........................................................................................
22

1. Prohibition of financing cluster munitions and explosive submunitions ........................
22

2. Prohibition of financing arms for use in terrorism ...................................................
23

B. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO ARMS-RELATED
FINANCING ACTIVITIES ..................................................................
28

1. International legal framework for Luxembourg state’s responsibility for
arms-related human rights violations and crimes .................................................................
......................
29

2. International legal framework for banks’ responsibility for arms-related
human rights violations and crimes ..............................................................................
.................
30

3. Arms-related financial activities prohibited by international law .................................
33

III. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................
36

A. KEY FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................
36

4 4 Banks, arms and human rights violations

1. Domestic Luxembourg legal framework on arms-related financial activities
is incomplete 36

2. A lack of transparent arms sector policies and procedures has been identified
.............. 37

3. Banks often have an incomplete understanding of their legal obligations
and human rights responsibilities ...............................................................................
........................
37

4. Significant gaps in internal detection and monitoring procedures for arms-related
transactions have been identified ...............................................................................
.
38

B. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LUXEMBOURG STATE ......................................
40

1. Strictly prohibit financial activities related to illegal arms and arms
destined to illegal use …………………………………………………………………………………………..40

2. Take all appropriate measures to ensure the effective implementation and
enforcement of such prohibition .................................................................................
....................
42

C. RECOMMENDATIONS TO BANKS ...................................................................
44

1. Commit to stop all activities related to illegal arms or arms destined to
illegal uses ........ 44

2. Ensure efficient implementation of such commitment through internal control
procedures45

3. Impose binding contractual requirements to clients and suppliers .............................
46

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................
......
47

APPENDIX 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO ARMS ............
48

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE USE OF ARMS ..............................................
48

1. International human rights law .........................................................................
48

2. International humanitarian law .........................................................................
50

3. International criminal law ...............................................................................
54

B. LEGAL STANDARDS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF ARMS ........................................
56

1. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) .................................................................
56

2. Conventional arms .........................................................................................
59

APPENDIX 2 – INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE BANKS ......................................
65

APPENDIX 3 - GLOSSARY ...........................................................................................

77

Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On average at least half a million people die every year and millions more
are injured, raped and forced to flee from their homes as a result of the poorly
regulated global trade in arms and munitions. The proliferation of arms and
their uncontrolled distribution is a continuing threat that no country can
escape, whether this violence is inflicted by state armed forces, non-state
armed groups or civilians. In order to counter this threat, a legal framework
has been developed over years, at international and domestic level, in order
to regulate arms-related activities and to prohibit certain types of arms or
certain uses of arms. Under these rules, there are: - Arms which use is prohibited
and therefore are per se illegal (e.g. chemical weapons, cluster munitions).
They are prohibited on a permanent basis and under any circumstances; - And
arms which may not be per se prohibited (e.g. AK-47 “Kalashnikov” rifle) but
which use in specific circumstances may contribute to the commission of illegal
purposes such as human rights violations, violations of international humanitarian
law or crimes under international law. Banks and other financial institutions
have a crucial role to play as financial and investment decision-makers. Financing
and investment, which are the core activities of financial institutions, are
not neutral activities. They shape and facilitate economic activity, including
in the arms sector. Moreover, banks also have a key part to play as controllers
of financial transactions transiting through them. That is why Amnesty International
(hereafter “AI”) decided to analyse the role of the financial sector in arms-related
activities through the specific case of the Luxembourg banking sector as it
is emblematic: Luxembourg is a major European and world financial centre and,
as will be discussed in this paper, has a complex and somewhat ambiguous position
on the question of arms.

A. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY The research had three objectives: - Analyse
the legal framework currently applicable to banks operating in Luxembourg with
respect to arms-related activities and determine how it could be improved;
- Analyse which measures have been taken by the Luxembourg state in order to
ensure the effective implementation of such legal rules to banks; Amnesty International
– January 2016

6 6 Banks, arms and human rights violations

- Analyse whether banks operating in Luxembourg have, at their level, defined
policies and procedures in order to avoid involvement in the financing of illegal
arms or arms with illegal end-use. Because of the large number of banks and
financial institutions in Luxembourg, conducting an exhaustive study was impracticable.
AI therefore focused on a sample of seven banks which were in 2013 among the
top banks operating in the Luxembourg financial centre (in terms of net profit,
turnover or number of staff) and were also for the most part international
banks. However, the issues covered by this report do not apply only to Luxembourg.
The analysis and conclusions are also to a large extent applicable to other
countries. The purpose of this report is not to determine about whether or
not certain banks operating in Luxembourg are actually involved in the financing
of illegal arms. Rather, this report focusses on the legal framework in which
the banks operate, and on the policies on arms publicly adopted by the banks
(when such policies exist) and their procedures for ensuring compliance with
said policies. It is not enough for a bank to say it has decided not to finance
such and such illegal arms- related activity. The bank must also effectively
comply with its relevant internal implementing procedures and demonstrate that
it is doing so consistently. AI’s conclusions are solely based on statements
made by the banks in relation to their policies and relevant implementing measures,
and on publicly available information; AI is not in a position to confirm whether
or not and to what extent these statements are correct. The purpose of this
report is not to deal with the rules and procedures used in the fight against
money laundering and financing terrorism (AML/CFT). However, this report will
refer to these rules when they are relevant for the analysis of the legal framework
applicable to arms-related banking activities. This report should not be read
as a condemnation of the banking sector, whether in Luxembourg or abroad, but
rather as an analysis of current rules and practices giving grounds to the
promotion of an enhanced regulatory framework on the matter. AI assessed compliance
of the existing Luxembourg legal framework and banks policies on arms on the
basis of international law binding upon Luxembourg, international standards
relevant to business and human rights, as well as European human rights law
and the law of the European Union to which Luxembourg is subject. Those sources
or law provide the legal and normative framework for the use of arms and specific
prohibitions on particular types of arms. International law prohibits arms
which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering
and arms which are by nature indiscriminate. On this basis, international law
specifically prohibits inter alia biological and chemical weapons, expanding
and exploding bullets, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. International
law also prohibits the use of arms for undesirable purposes such as violations
of human rights, violations of international humanitarian law or commission
of crimes under international law. In particular, international humanitarian
law prohibits the use of arms to intentionally direct attacks against civilians
or conduct indiscriminate (attacks of a nature to strike military objectives
and civilians without distinction) and disproportionate attacks, which may
amount to war crimes. International law also puts a ban on the use of arms
destined to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or other crimes
Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 7

under international law. If the activities which banks support by providing
financing or investment turn out to be unlawful or criminal then banks or individuals
representing them legally may incur liability. This is especially so if they
had the knowledge of the unlawful purpose of those activities. International
criminal law has developed a doctrine of aiding and abetting based on which,
under specific circumstances, persons can incur liability if they knowingly
provided means to commit a crime. Even in the absence of full compliance of
the Luxembourg state with certain international obligations, banks still have
certain human rights responsibilities. Those responsibilities have been encapsulated,
among other things, in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights (the UNGPs).

B. KEY FINDINGS The key findings of the research conducted by AI are the following:
- Domestic Luxembourg legal framework on arms-related financial activities
is incomplete With the exception of prohibition of financing activities relating
to cluster munitions and financing activities related to arms destined to terrorism,
Luxembourg has taken little or no measures to expressly prohibit all financial
operations related to illegal arms or arms destined to illegal use. In this
respect, Luxembourg has not fulfilled its international obligations with regards
to crimes under international law and serious violations of human rights although
it has a responsibility to implement and enforce its international commitments
to this respect, and under applicable treaties and international laws may be
held liable for not preventing the commission of such crimes and violations.
- A lack of transparent arms sector policies and procedures has been identified
AI’s research was based on a representative sample of seven top banks operating
in Luxembourg. Of the five banks that accepted AI’s invitation to dialogue,
BGL BNP Paribas and ING Luxembourg were the only ones providing evidence of
a written and publicly available document stating their policy on the arms
sector. - Banks often have an incomplete understanding of their legal obligations
and human rights responsibilities

Even in cases where international commitments are not yet implemented into
Luxembourg law, banks operating in Luxembourg should comply with existing international
obligations. Indeed, the responsibility for business enterprises to respect
human rights is independent from the state’s own human rights obligations.
The Luxembourg’s financial sector should not justify their failure to adopt
and put in place the necessary policies and procedures on arms on the basis
that domestic legislation on the subject is lacking or incomplete where international
laws otherwise provide sufficient guidance on arms financing restrictions.
Importantly, in certain circumstances under Luxembourg’s criminal law, both
banks (as corporations) and their employees (as individuals) could be held
liable if they were Amnesty International – January 2016

8 8 Banks, arms and human rights violations

found to have provided the opportunity and the means, through financing, for
the commission of serious human rights violations and crimes under international
law. - Significant gaps in internal detection and monitoring procedures for
arms-related transactions have been identified. The success of any responsible
policy on financing and investing in the arms sector requires effective internal
control procedures. As a consequence, Know your Client/Client Due Diligence
(KYC/CDD) procedures are key to detect and prevent transactions relating to
illegal arms or illegal uses of arms. Banks are under domestic applicable laws
subject to an obligation to implement thorough due diligence procedures for
AML/CFT compliance purposes. Based on the information gathered by AI through
the research, and the activities reports of the Finance Sector Supervisory
Commission (Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier -CSSF)1 on the
implementation of AML/CFT procedures in the banking sector, some significant
deficiencies in the procedures can be reported. The deficiencies spotted by
the CSSF (e.g. inadequate customer due diligence, lack of documentation on
the origin of funds, lack of training for employees) tallies with the observations
made by AI while conducting this research. These procedural flaws are as prejudicial
to the fight against terrorism financing as they are to the fight against financing
of other illegal arms unrelated to terrorism. Where the banks have the necessary
internal procedures against financing of international terrorism, they can
leverage on these procedures to verify that financing is not used for other
purposes such as financing of arms in regions where atrocities are committed
or destined to end-users who may divert them for prohibited uses.

C. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of the key findings of
this research, AI has made a series of recommendations to improve the legislative
framework and practices on financing and investment in arms in the Luxembourg
financial sector. These recommendations are not only addressed to the Luxembourg
financial centre, but to the entire financial sector in Europe and the world.
This report’s recommendations are valid for all countries where legislation
is incomplete or non-existent on arms-related financial activities. Luxembourg
has already made some progress on this issue by legislating against the financing
of cluster munitions. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LUXEMBOURG STATE The Luxembourg
state must:

1 Luxembourg banks operate under the supervision of the CSSF which is a public
institution which supervises the professionals and products of the Luxembourg
financial sector. It supervises, regulates (through regulations and circulars),
authorises, informs, and, where appropriate, carries out on-site inspections
and issues sanctions. In particular, the CSSF is in charge of ensuring compliance
with professional obligations as regards the AML/CTF rules by all persons subject
to its supervision. Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 9

- Strictly prohibit financial activities related to illegal arms and arms destined
to an illegal use Luxembourg must put a ban on all financials activities in
relation with illegal arms (i.e. arms which use is prohibited and therefore
are per se illegal), for instance cluster munitions or chemical arms, or arms
destined to an illegal use (i.e. arms used to commit crimes under international
law and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law). Such
financial activities include financing through loans and capital market instruments,
provision of guarantees, provision of financial services, portfolio management,
and any other financial activity undertaken for or on behalf of individuals
or legal persons that conduct activities (i.e. develop, manufacture, assemble,
convert, modify, repair, acquire, use, possess, hold, transport, stockpile,
keep, sell or transfer) relating to an illegal arm or an arm destined to an
illegal use, or an essential component of such illegal arm or arm destined
to an illegal use. In order to guarantee its effectiveness, such legislation
must provide for criminal sanctions against banks (as legal persons) and individuals
performing the activities of the banks, when they knowingly violate the prohibition.
- Take all appropriate measures to ensure the effective implementation and
enforcement of such prohibition Luxembourg must take all appropriate legal,
administrative and other national measures to ensure the effective implementation
and enforcement of the prohibitions, and in particular define professional
obligations applicable to banks and sanctions for non-compliance with such
obligations. Appropriate measures should include, without being limited to:
- Imposing on banks professional obligations aiming at detecting and preventing
transactions related to illegal arms and arms destined to an illegal use, and
in particular the performance of human rights due diligence with respect to
arms-related transactions. Such measures could leverage on existing AML/CFT
rules but should constitute a separate set of rules as their goal exceeds the
scope of AML/CFT rules. - Applying criminal and administrative penalties for
non-compliance with the above professional obligations. - Introducing adequate
control and supervision procedures, by appointing a supervisory body (the CSSF).
- Closing loopholes in the legislation.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO BANKS The banks must: - Commit to stop all activities related
to illegal arms or arms destined to illegal uses Banks must publicly commit,
through clear written public documents, to stop all financial activities in
relation with illegal arms or arms destined to an illegal use Amnesty International
– January 2016

10 10 Banks, arms and human rights violations

(i.e. arms used to commit crimes under international law and violations of
human rights and international humanitarian law). Such financial activities
include financing through loans and capital market instruments, provision of
guarantees, provision of financial services, portfolio management, and any
other financial activity undertaken for or on behalf of individuals or legal
persons that conduct activities (i.e. develop, manufacture, assemble, convert,
modify, repair, acquire, use, possess, hold, transport, stockpile, keep, sell
or transfer) relating to an illegal arm or an arm destined to an illegal use,
or an essential component of such illegal arm or arm destined to an illegal
use. - Ensure efficient implementation of such commitment through internal
control procedures Banks must take all the appropriate measures to ensure compliance
with international rules prohibiting illegal arms and arms destined to illegal
uses, by implementing procedures to detect and prevent illegal transactions.
They must enact robust policies and procedures (including human rights due
diligence) to ensure that as a result of their business transactions they do
not cause or contribute to human rights and international humanitarian law
violations or crimes under international law.

KYC procedures and other internal due diligence procedures must be reinforced
in order to identify the real economic beneficiaries of arms-related transactions;
their intended and actual end-users and end use so as to determine the likelihood
of those arms being in fact prohibited under national and international law
or their use (no matter if they are prohibited as such or not) resulting in
the commission of serious human rights violations or crimes under international
law. To this purpose, it makes sense for Luxembourg-based banks to leverage
on the procedures they have already implemented for AML/CFT compliance purposes.
- Impose binding contractual requirements to clients and suppliers Banks must
strengthen the contractual obligations they place on the individuals and legal
persons with which they do business and make compliance a condition of agreeing
to transactions and maintaining a business relationship. Such clauses would
impose clear representations and undertakings as to compliance with relevant
international laws and treaties on illegal arms and arms destined for illegal
uses.

Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 11

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S POSITION ON ARMS

AI is a global human rights movement. It campaigns on behalf of victims of
violations of these rights, based on impartial research and international law.
The organization is independent of governments, political ideologies, economic
interests and religion. For several decades, AI and other organizations, has
opposed the sale and transfer of equipment, technologies and skills for military,
security and police use, when there is a substantial risk they will be used
to commit serious violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law. AI is neither anti-militarist nor pacifist. AI does not seek
the disappearance of the arms industry or to eliminate the military capacity
of states. Rather than contesting the legitimate right of states to arm themselves,
especially to discharge their duty to protect their individuals, AI calls on
them to act responsibly and improve the controls of arms transfers within and
beyond their borders so that they comply with their international obligations
including international human rights law, international humanitarian law and
international criminal law. In this context, AI works for radical change of
the rules and practices that regulate the global arms trade. It campaigned
for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which entered into force on 24 December 2014
and regulates international trade in conventional weapons.

Amnesty International – January 2016

12 12 Banks, arms and human rights violations

FOREWORD

The report “Banks, Arms and Human Rights Violations” is the result of a three-year
process, driven by the coordinator of the Business and Human Rights Group of
Amnesty International Luxembourg (AIL) whom we would like to thank for her
hard work and dedication. We are also grateful to our colleagues from Amnesty
International’s International Secretariat, working for the Global Themes &
Issues Programme and the Business & Human Rights Team, for their contributions
for this report. Finally, we would like to thank the banks, which contributed
with information and dedicated their time and personnel to this process. AIL
has worked in good faith to provide factual information about banks and government
policies in relation to arms and human rights violations. Anyway, it welcomes
any feedback, comments, clarifications and updates on this report, made with
a spirit of dialogue and for a continuous search of accurate and reliable information.

David Pereira Stan Brabant President Director Amnesty International Luxembourg
Amnesty International Luxembourg

Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 13

INTRODUCTION

On average at least half a million people die every year and millions more
are injured, raped and forced to flee from their homes as a result of the poorly
regulated global trade in arms and munitions. The arms trade is shrouded in
secrecy, but the recorded value of international transfers is approaching USD$100
billion (about €93 billion) annually.2 The proliferation of arms and their
uncontrolled distribution is a vital issue and a threat to security. No country
can escape the threat of armed violence, whether it is inflicted by state armed
forces, non-state armed groups or civilians.

In order to counter the threat of armed violence, a legal framework has developed
over years, either at international or domestic level, in order to regulate
arms-related activities (namely developing, manufacturing, assembling, converting,
modifying, repairing, acquiring, using, possessing, holding, transporting,
stockpiling, keeping, selling and transferring arms) and prohibit certain types
of arms or certain uses of arms. Under these rules, there are: - Arms which
use is prohibited and therefore are per se illegal (e.g. chemical weapons,
cluster munition). They are prohibited on a permanent basis and under any circumstances;
- And arms which may not be per se prohibited (e.g. AK-47 “Kalashnikov” rifle)
but which use in specific circumstances may contribute to the commission of
illegal purposes such as human rights violations, violations of international
humanitarian law or crimes under international law. Illegality or arms or uses
of arms depends on the legal framework against which it is assessed. Indeed,
domestic arms-related legal rules vary from one country to another, and there
is also an international set of rules (at global or regional level) which may
interact with or supersede domestic provisions. Arms-related activities, whether
these arms are legal or illegal, requires money and therefore the intervention
of banks and other financial institutions, which have a crucial role to play
not only as financial and investment decision-makers, but also as controllers
of financial transactions transiting through them. Firstly, because of the
financial and investment decisions they make, banks have a major influence
on shaping certain sectors of the economy, including the arms sector. As the
organization PAX3 noted in its report on investment in cluster munitions, financing
and

2 http://www.amnesty.eu/en/news/press-releases/eu/arms/arms-trade-treaty-marks-historic-breakthrough-
for-human-rights-after-two-decade-campaign-0831/#.VZF45PlViko and https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/09/
global-arms-trade-treaty-beginners-guide-th-ratification-
update/ 3 PAX is a partnership between IKV (Interchurch Peace Council) and
Pax Christi. Its mission is to “work together with involved civilians and partners
in areas of war, to protect human security, to prevent and end arms violence
and to build peace with justice” (www.paxforpeace.nl). Amnesty International
– January 2016

14 14 Banks, arms and human rights violations

providing financial services to companies is not a neutral activity. “Financial
institutions sometimes regard financing or providing financial services to
companies as a neutral activity. But investing in a company clearly supports
that company’s objectives by raising the capital it needs to pursue them. In
delivering a financial service to a company, a financial institution signifies
its approval of this company’s objectives.”4

Secondly, arms-related financial flows transit through banks, which give them
a key role in controlling arms-related transactions, including the detection
of illegal transactions. Indeed, the transfer of arms, whether legal or illegal,
generally involves the participation of many intermediaries (e.g. brokers,5
financers, transporters) which are essential to the success of the transactions
and blur the traceability of arms-related transactions. For example, Viktor
Bout, one of the world’s most influential and important arms traffickers until
his arrest, used an amorphous grouping of airlines that he partly or fully
owned,6 which allowed him to secretly organize and conduct the transfers. As
another example, the arms trafficking activities of a French national Robert
Montoya and his business associates in various countries of West Africa and
Europe were documented by the UN Panel of experts investigating violations
of the Security Council arms embargo on Cote d'Ivoire. Mr Montoya's trafficking
and brokering network was described in several UN reports between 2005 and
2012.7 Unscrupulous intermediaries are able to operate with impunity by taking
advantage of the weaknesses and differences between national laws and control
regimes. The complexity and opacity of these webs of intermediaries increases
the risk of these arms being diverted and used to commit grave abuses under
international law. A topical example illustrates this fact. On 13 November
2015, in Paris, France, 130 people were killed and more than 350 injured through
a wave of bombings and shooting attacks perpetrated by the armed group calling
itself Islamic State. Some of the M70 assault rifles used in the attacks had
reportedly been produced in Serbia in the 1980s and recycled in the black market
of arms after being sent to military stocks during the Balkan war.8 The lack
of transparency, supervision and control of the logistical and financial chain
involved in the arms trade facilitates the diversion of arms. It also shows
that it is necessary to identify and control the entire chain of intermediaries.
The very large sums of money generally involved in arms transfers and the international

4 In Worldwide Investments in Cluster Munitions: a shared responsibility -
PAX – 2014. 5 Definition of arms brokering may slightly vary from one source
to another. Under the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 5 August 2015 on the brokering
of defence-related products and dual use goods (Mem.A- 157, p.3797), are brokering
activities: activities of individuals or legal persons (i) negotiating or arranging
transactions which may include the transfer, from one third party country to
another third party country, of defence-related products, or (ii) acquiring,
selling or transferring defence-related products which belong to them, exported
from a third-party country to another third-party country, or (iii) exporting
defence-related products from their territory to the territory of another member
state. Are also targeted auxiliary services such as provision of technical
assistance, activities relate to conclusion of lease agreement, contribution,
loan or deposit related to the transfer of such products, transportation services,
financial services, insurance et reinsurance, advertising and promotion. 6
On this point, see Armes de corruption massives – secrets et combines des marchands
de canons – Jean Guisnel – Editions La Découverte – 2011, chapter 8. Victor
Bout is currently serving a 25 year prison sentence in the United States. 7
See "Communities Shattered by Arms Proliferation and Abuse in Cote d'Ivoire,"
Amnesty International, March 2013, INDEX AFR 31/002/2013 - https://www.amnesty.org/.../afr310022013en.pdf
; Final Report of the United Nations Group of Experts, April 2012, S/2012/196.
8 « Des armes d’ex-Yougoslavie » – Le Monde/Attentats du 13 novembre – http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/art
icle/2015/11/29/des-fusils-utilises-par-les-auteurs-des-
attentats-du-13-novembre-identifies-en-serbie_4819855_4809495.html Amnesty
International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 15

nature of arms transactions lead traffickers to use countries where legislation
does not require detailed checks or the submission of financial accounts. The
close link between arms trafficking, brokering and illegal financial transactions
was highlighted by the United Nations Security Council,9 which recalled “with
concern the close connection between international terrorism, transnational
organized crime, drugs trafficking, money-laundering, other illicit financial
transactions[10], illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons and arms
trafficking, and the link between the illegal exploitation of natural resources,
illicit trade in such resources and the proliferation and trafficking of arms
as a major factor fuelling and exacerbating many conflicts (…).” For the two
reasons mentioned above, AI decided to analyse the role of the financial sector
in arms-related activities through the emblematic case of the Luxembourg banking
sector.

9 Resolution 2117 of 26 September 2013. 10 Underlined by the author. Amnesty
International – January 2016

16 16 Banks, arms and human rights violations

I. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THIS REPORT

A. OBJECTIVES

The research had three objectives: - Analyse the legal framework currently
applicable to banks operating in Luxembourg with respect to arms-related activities
and determine how it could be improved; - Analyse which measures have been
taken by the Luxembourg state in order to ensure the effective implementation
of such legal rules to banks; - Analyse whether the banks operating in Luxembourg
have, at their level, defined policies and procedures in order to avoid involvement
in the financing of illegal arms or arms with illegal end-use. However, the
issues covered by this report are also largely relevant to other jurisdictions
than Luxembourg. Most of the Luxembourg banks included in this survey are global
banks so the contents of the report apply to their operations at the global
level and draw out lessons that can be transposed to other countries. Moreover,
many countries have arms-related legal frameworks similar to that of Luxembourg.
The purpose of this report is not to determine about whether or not certain
banks operating in Luxembourg are actually involved in the financing of illegal
arms. Rather, this report focuses on the legal framework in which the banks
operate, and on the policies on arms publicly adopted by the banks (when policies
exist) and their procedures for ensuring compliance with policies. It is not
enough for a bank to say it has decided not to finance such and such illegal
arms-related activity. The bank must also effectively comply with its relevant
internal implementing procedures and demonstrate that it is doing so consistently.
AI conclusions are solely based on statements made by the banks in relation
to their policies and relevant implementing measures, and on publicly available
information; AI is not in a position to confirm whether or not and to what
extent these statements are correct. The purpose of this report is not to deal
with the rules and procedures used in the fight against money laundering and
financing terrorism (AML/CFT). However, this report will refer to these rules
when they are relevant for the analysis of the legal framework applicable to
arms-related banking activities. This report should not be read as a condemnation
of the banking sector, whether in Luxembourg or abroad, but rather as an analysis
of current rules and practices giving grounds to the promotion of an enhanced
regulatory framework on the matter.

Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 17

B. METHODOLOGY

1. THE CASE OF LUXEMBOURG: A LOCAL ILLUSTRATION OF A GLOBAL PROBLEM The financing
of activities relating to illegal arms or arms with illegal end-use is a global
problem. Why use the example of Luxembourg? Because Luxembourg is a particularly
emblematic case, for several reasons: - Its status as a major European and
world financial centre Luxembourg is the second biggest investment centre in
the world and the number one centre for private banking in the euro zone. The
total number of banks in Luxembourg at the end of 2014 was 144, of which 39
were branches of foreign banks.11 - Its status of member state of the European
Union Luxembourg was one of the very first member states of the European Community
and its legislation exemplifies how legislation of the European Union (EU)
about arms may be implemented in member states. In recent years there have
been ongoing efforts at the EU level to strengthen and harmonize member states’
arms controls policies.12 The most important examples are the EU standards
about arms export control and control of arms brokering.13 These efforts aimed
at preventing the export of military technology and equipment that might be
used for undesirable purposes such as internal repression or international
aggression, or contribute to regional instability. In particular, they established
a notification and consultation mechanism for export licence denials and set
criteria for the export of conventional arms. The EU also imposes arms embargoes
legally binding on all member states, including Luxembourg. Further, the EU
has established a regulation covering the trade in certain goods which could
be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.14 To this respect, it is noteworthy that it is only
on 5 August 2015 that Luxembourg issued a Grand-Ducal Regulation on the brokering
of defence-related products and dual use goods which imposes an authorisation
regime on brokering activities and

11 Luxembourg banking insights 2015 – KPMG - http://www.kpmg.com/lu/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pag
es/luxembourg-banking-
insights.aspx 12 See http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htm

13 Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common
rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment, Official
Journal of the European Union, L335, 8 Dec.2008 14 Council Regulation (EC)
no. 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could
be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, Official Journal of the European Union, L200, 30 July
2005. The regulation entered into force on 30 July 2006. Amnesty International
– January 2016

18 18 Banks, arms and human rights violations

brings Luxembourg regulation on arms brokering in line with European provisions.15
- Its complex and ambiguous position on the question of arms Luxembourg has
a complex and ambiguous position on the question of arms proliferation. Luxembourg
has played a pioneering role in the struggle against the financing of arms,
by becoming one of the few countries in the world to pass legislation forbidding
public and private financial institutions from investing in cluster munitions.16
In addition, the Luxembourg financial market has publicly expressed its determination
to avoid involvement in the financing of arms: in 2008, the Association of
Luxembourg Banks and Bankers (Association des Banques et Banquiers, Luxembourg,
ABBL) and the Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry (ALFI) declared that
“financing arms has no place in the markets of our financial centre.”17 Moreover,
Luxembourg signed the Arms Trade Treaty on 3 June 2013 and ratified it on 3
June 2014. It supported a strong treaty throughout negotiations. Luxembourg
was among the first countries to sign the treaty and among the first 50 ratifications
that triggered entry into force on 24 December 2014. However, it is only with
the Grand-Ducal Regulation on the brokering of defence-related products and
dual use goods issued on 5 August 201518 that Luxembourg brought its legislation
in line with the ATT provisions19 on this issue of arms brokering, and other
implementation measures have not been taken yet.

15 See in particular: -Common Position 2003/468/CFSP on the control of arms
brokering (JOUE, 25 June 2003 n° L 335 of 13 December 2008, p. 99). The stated
objective of the Common Position is to control arms brokering in order to avoid
the circumvention of United Nations, EU or OSCE embargoes on arms exports,
as well as of the Criteria set out in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.
To achieve this objective, member states are required “to establish a clear
legal framework for legal brokering activities” that conforms to the mandatory
provisions of the Common Position. The Common Position establishes provisions
to be implemented through national legislation, requiring member states to
regulate brokering activities on their territory or carried out by their nationals.
In particular, it requires member states to subject brokering transactions
to licence applications, to establish a system for the exchange of information
on brokering activities, and to establish adequate sanctions for effective
enforcement. -Council regulation 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for
the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items (JOUE,
25 May 2009 n° L134). 16 These countries are Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Samoa, Spain and Switzerland. In addition, at
least 27 States Parties and signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions
have elaborated their view that investment in cluster munition production is
a form of assistance that is prohibited by the convention. See http://the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2015/cluster-

munition-monitor-2015/cluster-munition-ban-policy.aspx 17 ABBL and ALFI opinion
on bill 5821 on the “prohibition of the manufacture, sale, acquisition, stockpiling,
transport, use and financing of cluster munitions,” 13/06/2008, http://www.abbl.lu/fr/blog/article/2008/06/avis-d
e-l-abbl-et-de-l-alfi-sur-le-projet-de-loi-n-5821-visant-l-
interdiction-de-la-fabrication-de-la-vente-de-l-acquisition-du-stockage-du-transport-de-l-utilisation-et-du-
financement-des-armes-a-sous-munitions-basm. Original quotation in French:
“le financement des armes n’appartient pas aux créneaux de notre place financière.”
18 Op.cit. 19 For example, article 10 of the ATT states that: “Each State Party
shall take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking
place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms covered under Article 2
(1). Such measures may include requiring brokers to register or obtain written
Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 19

Luxembourg has not implemented yet all the international commitments it has
taken with respect to arms. Luxembourg legislation on arms control still presents
worrying inadequacies. Discussion of the bill on the country’s intelligence
services referred to gaps in its legal system regarding information gathering
on arms proliferation and emphasized that “this is a gap in our legislation
that should be filled quickly, because Luxembourg airport is a point of transit
for intra and extra- community military arms systems, in particular between
Europe and the Middle East.”20 Nevertheless, on the political and diplomatic
fronts, the Luxembourg foreign minister described the non-proliferation of
conventional and nuclear arms as “two priorities for Luxembourg in terms of
conflict prevention.”21 The ministry’s annual report for 2013 states that “Luxembourg
supports the constant search for security and the lowest possible level of
arms and is party to all regional and international treaties and conventions
in this field.”22

For all these reasons, AI decided to approach the complex problem of the financing
of arms- related activities by analysing the case of Luxembourg and the role
of the banks that have operations in this country.

2. PRESENTATION OF THE BANKS IN THE SAMPLE Given the high number and variety
of financial institutions based in Luxembourg, AI restricted its preliminary
research to a limited sample of banks falling into the scope of the Luxembourg
Law of 5 April 1993 on the finance sector, and representative of Luxembourg’s
banking sector. However, as this report analyses the legal framework about
arms-related financial activities as a whole, most of the conclusions and recommendations
of this report may be applied to the whole financial sector, whether in Luxembourg
or elsewhere. The seven banks contacted in the course of this research were:
- Banque et Caisse d’Epargne de l’Etat, Luxembourg (hereafter “BCEE”) - Banque
Internationale à Luxembourg (hereafter “BIL”) - Banque de Luxembourg (hereafter
“BdL”) - Banque Raiffeisen (hereafter “Raiffeisen”) - BGL BNP Paribas (hereafter
“BNP”) - ING Luxembourg (hereafter “ING”) - KBL European Private Bankers (hereafter
“KBL”)

authorization before engaging in brokering.” 20 Bill 6675 on the organisation
of state intelligence services. For full details on the proposed legislation,
see http://www.chd.lu/wps/portal/public/RoleEtendu?action=doDocpaDetails&backto=/wps/portal/public&id=6
675 21 Annual Report 2013, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, p.52.
22 Annual Report 2013, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, p.52. Amnesty
International – January 2016

20 20 Banks, arms and human rights violations

AI chose these banks because of their importance in the Luxembourg financial
centre (measured in terms of net profit, turnover and number of staff) and
because of their legal status (financial institutions registered under Luxembourg
law, limited liability companies registered under Luxembourg law, cooperatives
registered under Luxembourg law), with a view to providing as representative
a sample as possible of the Luxembourg banking sector. Two sources of information
were used to make this choice: - The list of banks registered in Luxembourg
in accordance with the law of 5 April 1993, available on the website of the
CSSF;23 - KPMG’s analysis about Luxembourg banking institutions: “Luxembourg
Banks Insights.”24

On the basis of one or several of these criteria (net profits, turnover and
number of staff), all the banks chosen were in 2013 in the top ten of Luxembourg
banks, with the exception of Banque Raiffeisen, which was included because
of its unique status as a cooperative bank. KPMG Ranking 2013 Bank Legal status
alphabetical order Turnover Staff Assets under management Banque et Caisse
financial institution d’Epargne de registered under 4 3 4 l’Etat, Luxembourg
law Luxembourg Banque limited liability company Internationale à registered
under 28 2 6 Luxembourg Luxembourg law Banque de limited liability company
Luxembourg registered under 16 10 13 Luxembourg law cooperative registered
Banque Raiffeisen 22 13 23 under Luxembourg law limited liability company BGL
BNP Paribas registered under 5 1 5 Luxembourg law limited liability company
ING Luxembourg registered under 9 8 15 Luxembourg law limited liability company
KBL European registered under 101 5 20 Private Bankers Luxembourg law

23 http://supervisedentities.cssf.lu/index.html?language=fr&type=BNK#ResultResearch
24 http://www.kpmg.com/LU/en/IssuesAndInsights/Articlespublications/Documents/Luxembourg-Banks-
Insights-2014-09-05.pdf. AI used the 2012 and 2013 versions.

Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 21

3. CONDUCT OF THE RESEARCH AI began by inviting the selected banks to discuss
their policy on financing and investing in arms and whether improvements could
be made to their policies to bring them into line with existing international
law and the changing legislative environment. AI would like to thank those
banks that agreed to participate in this study and provide information on their
arms policies. The contents of this report are based on different sources of
information: - Research and analysis of publicly available information including
in particular documentation about the legal framework applicable to arms (at
Luxembourg domestic level as well as international level) and the Luxembourg
financial sector. - Research and analysis of the information provided by the
banks to AI in response to AI’s questions, either in writing or verbally. Only
five of the seven banks contacted by AI provided information about their policies
on defence and arms, with different levels of details. However, some of the
banks who had initially provided information were subsequently unwilling to
provide more information related to their internal implementing procedures
and their outcomes. The scope of the analysis was therefore limited by the
availability of information and by the communications policies of the banks
in the sample. Bank Status (alphabetical order) Banque et Caisse d’Epargne
de l’Etat, Replied and met AI. Luxembourg Banque Internationale à Expressly
refused to meet AI and to take part in the study. Luxembourg Banque de Luxembourg
First indicated that it wished to take part in the study but did not follow
up on invitations to meet, nor on requests for information. Banque Raiffeisen
Replied and met AI. BGL BNP Paribas Replied and met AI. ING Luxembourg Provided
written responses to AI. KBL European Private Provided some basic information
by courier but did not respond Bankers to further requests. Information was
gathered in the course of interviews and also via couriers and email correspondence
(between February 2013 and March 2015). As stated above, AI’s analysis is based
on information provided by the banks themselves and other information publicly
available. AI’s research did not attempt at this stage to corroborate or ascertain
whether this information matches actual investment and financing practices.
The information obtained from the banks is summarized in Appendix 2 of this
report. AI submitted to each bank the extracts of this report where it is mentioned.
All sources of information on which AI based its research are mentioned throughout
this report.

Amnesty International – January 2016

22 22 Banks, arms and human rights violations

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO ARMS-RELATED FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES

The section below provides an overview of the standards which are applicable
to arms-related financial activities carried out by the Luxembourg financial
sector, and under which criteria certain arms may be regarded as illegal per
se or destined to illegal use. A. DOMESTIC PROVISIONS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITING
SPECIFIC ARMS- RELATED FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES There is no Luxembourg law generally
prohibiting all financial and investing activities relating to arms, whether
these arms are legal or illegal.

However, under Luxembourg law, financing and investing in arms is strictly
prohibited in two specific cases: - When arms are cluster munitions or explosive
submunitions; - When arms are for use in terrorism.

1. PROHIBITION OF FINANCING CLUSTER MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVE SUBMUNITIONS Cluster
munitions25 are prohibited by the Convention on Cluster Munitions of 30 May
2008,

25 The Convention provides that “cluster munition” means a conventional munition
that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing
less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions. It does
not mean the following: (a) A munition or submunition designed to dispense
flares, smoke, pyrotechnics or chaff; or a munition designed exclusively for
an air defence role; (b) A munition or submunition designed to produce electrical
or electronic effects; (c) A munition that, in order to avoid indiscriminate
area effects and the risks posed by unexploded submunitions, has all of the
following characteristics: (i) Each munition contains fewer than ten explosive
submunitions; (ii) Each explosive submunition weighs more than four kilograms;
(iii) Each explosive submunition is designed to detect and engage a single
target object; (iv) Each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic
selfdestruction mechanism; (v) Each explosive submunition is equipped with
an electronic selfdeactivating feature. The Convention provides that “explosive
submunition” means a conventional munition that in order to perform its task
is dispersed or released by a cluster munition and is designed to function
by detonating Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 23

signed on 3 December 2008 and approved by the Luxembourg law of 4 June 2009.26
The law of 4 June 2009 prohibits “all individuals and legal persons from knowingly
financing cluster munitions or explosive submunitions.”27

Such law provides that criminal sanctions applicable in case of violation of
the prohibition are imprisonment for 5 to 10 years, and/or a fine of 25,000
to 1,000,000 euros. When not performed knowingly, financing of cluster munitions
is not subject to the prohibition and related criminal sanctions. No Grand-Ducal
Regulation has been taken yet for implementation of the law of 4 June 2009.

2. PROHIBITION OF FINANCING ARMS FOR USE IN TERRORISM Specific measures have
been taken by Luxembourg in order to implement UN Security Council resolutions
and EU legislation imposing prohibitions and restrictions on financial matters
towards certain persons, entities and groups in the fight against money laundering
and the financing of terrorism. So called “AML/ CFT” legislation is now a cornerstone
of financial regulation in Luxembourg. AML/CFT legal framework has impact on
the financing of arms in so far as it prohibits (i) recycling funds obtained
as a result of breaches of the law on arms and (ii) financing arms to be used
for terrorism. This is why such regulation is mentioned within this report.
The AML/CFT legal framework in force in Luxembourg is the following: - Law
amended of 12 November 2004 on money laundering and the financing of terrorism;
- Grand Ducal Regulation of 1 February 2010 clarifying certain provisions of
the amended law of 12 November 2004 on money laundering and the financing of
terrorism;28 - Law of 27 October 2010 strengthening the legislation on money
laundering and the financing of terrorism;29 - Grand Ducal Regulation of 29
October 2010 (co-ordinated version) enforcing the law of 27 October 2010 implementing
United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as legislation adopted
by the European Union concerning prohibitions and restrictive measures in financial
matters in respect of certain persons, entities and groups in the context of
the combat against terrorism financing. - Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15/11/2006 on information on the
payer accompanying transfer of funds.

an explosive charge prior to, on or after impact. 26 Mém. A – 147 of 22 June
2009, p. 2038. 27 Article 3 of the law: ”Il est interdit a` toute personne
physique ou morale de financer, en connaissance de cause, des armes à sous-
munitions ou des sous-munitions explosives.” 28 Mém. A - 15 du 04.02.2010,
p. 228 29 Law of 27 October 2010 strengthening the legislation on money laundering
and the financing of terrorism; organising the controls over the physical transport
of cash entering, passing through or leaving the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg;
regarding the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions
and European Union actions introducing prohibitions and restrictions on financial
matters concerning certain persons, entities and groups within the framework
of the fight against the financing of terrorism - (Mém. A-193 of 3.11.2010
p.3172). Amnesty International – January 2016

24 24 Banks, arms and human rights violations

- The CSSF Regulation 12-02 of 14 December 2012.30

This legal framework is completed by Grand Ducal regulations implementing restrictive
measures introduced by the United Nations Security Council and the European
Union. In addition, the CSSF has adopted circulars31 which provide guidance
about the implementation of AML/CFT related-rules. The below a) and b) sections
describe the key features of such legal framework. a) Definition of terrorism
financing practice under Luxembourg law Under Luxembourg criminal law,32 is
a terrorism financing practice any practice consisting in providing or collecting
by any means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, funds,
securities or property of any kind, with the intention of using them or knowing
they will be used, in whole or in part, to commit or attempt to commit one
or more terrorist acts, even if they have not actually been used to commit
or attempt to commit any of these offenses, or if they are not linked to a
specific terrorist acts. Terrorist financing practices also include the provision
or collection by any means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and
wilfully, of funds, securities or assets of any kind, with the intention of
using them or knowing that they will be used, in whole or in part, by a terrorist
or a terrorist group, even if they have not actually been used to commit or
attempt to commit any of these offenses, or if they are not linked to a specific
terrorist acts. The list of terrorist acts includes in particular: - Attacks
against persons benefiting from international protection; - Terrorist offences;
- Terrorist attacks with explosive devices or other lethal devices; - Offences
related to terrorist activities (including incitement to terrorism, recruitment
for terrorism and training for terrorism); - Hostage-taking. Criminal sanctions
for terrorism financing are similar to the criminal sanctions applicable to
commission of the terrorist acts which are financed, and can go up to life
imprisonment.33

b) AML/CFT requirements under Luxembourg law The AML/CFT legal framework imposes
a number of professional obligations to banks and other professionals subject
to the supervision of the CSSF, in particular with respect to risk assessment,
due diligence and reporting obligations. It also provides for penalties for
non- compliance with these professional obligations.

30 CSSF Regulation 12-02 of 14 December 2012 on money laundering and the financing
of terrorism (Mém. A – 5 of 09.01.2013, p. 103) 31 A list of these circulars
is available at http://www.cssf.lu/surveillance/criminalite-financiere/lbc-
ft/circulaires 32 Luxembourg criminal code, article 112-1, 135-1 to 135-6,
442-1. 33 Articles 135-6 and 135-7 of the Luxembourg Criminal Code. Amnesty
International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 25

AML/CFT professional obligations include among others: customer acceptance
policy, detailed procedures as regards the identification, assessment, supervision,
management and mitigation of money laundering and terrorist financing risks,
specific risk management mechanisms, hiring procedures (to ensure high standards,
good character and professional experience when hiring employees) and awareness-raising
program, accurate definition of the respective responsibilities of the various
AML/CFT functions of the personnel. Risk-based approach

The rules mentioned above provide for a risk based approach methodology where
measures taken have to be properly aligned to the assessed risk. This risk
assessment is based on various criteria such as client risk, country risk,
risk associated with products, transactions or the distribution/selling of
the product. The written AML/CFT risk assessment must be performed by the bank
for each new client and for each new product prior to client acceptance or
the product launch. The risk score of each client must be kept up to date;
and the bank must be in a position to communicate its risk assessment to the
CSSF. Professionals, including banks, who have to comply should do so in a
way that is efficient and effective and suited to the nature, structure and
organization of their business, the size of their company, and the resources
available. Risk Assessment and risk management

The risk-based approach comprises a risk assessment based on various risk categories:
- Customer risk assessment: a bank must perform customer due diligence when
it enters into a business relationship with a customer. Politically Exposed
Persons (PEPs) are customers representing a higher risk. - Relationship risk
assessment: the bank must determine higher risk relationships depending on
various criteria like the nature of the business relationship (e.g. non face
to face relationships). - Transaction risk assessment: transactions defined
as having higher risk are complex transactions, transactions with an unusually
high amount, non face-to-face transactions as well as all transactions which
have no apparent economic purpose or licit object. - Country and geographic
areas risk: country risk may be assessed based on a number of factors including:34
Sanctions, embargoes or similar measures issued by, for example, the UN and
the EU; Countries identified as lacking appropriate AML/CFT laws and regulations;
Countries identified as providing funding or support for terrorists or their
activities; Countries identified as facing high criminality and/or political
instability. - Risk associated with products, services, transactions or delivery
channels and marketing arrangements. Assessing the risk of each new client
and for each new product needs to be done before client acceptance/product
launch. During the monitoring of the business relationship, the

34 Information can be found for instance in FATF reports and declarations;
World Bank reports, CSSF documentation, EU reports and lists, Transparency
International reports. Amnesty International – January 2016

26 26 Banks, arms and human rights violations

professional must keep account of the development of the risk and adapt its
assessment according to any significant change affecting them or any new risk.
All professionals must be able to communicate their risk assessment to the
CSSF. Banks and other professionals must have policies, controls and procedures
that enable them to effectively manage and mitigate their money laundering
and terrorist financing risks. These policies, controls and procedures must
be approved by the authorized management. Customer Due Diligence and Customer
Identification

Customer Due Diligence (KYC) is a key piece of the risk assessment approach.
It mainly consists in (i) the verification of the customer identification information
and (ii) the identification and verification of the beneficial owner. Each
customer relationship needs to be approved in writing by an appropriately authorised
employee or member of management, depending on the level of customer risk.
In the case of high-risk customers, senior management and the AML/CFT compliance
officer need to be involved. The identity of a customer must be verified and
information on the source of a customer’s funds must be obtained at the very
beginning of the customer relationship. Customer Due Diligence must include
screening of sanction lists (e.g. lists arising from any regulation adopted
at a national level and by the EU concerning prohibitions and restrictive measures
in financial matters in respect of certain persons, entities and groups35)
and screening of PEP lists. No client types are excluded, not even those for
whom professionals are allowed to apply reduced due diligence measures. Checks
must be performed at the beginning of the business relationship and on an ongoing
basis. All results of such checks must be evidenced and documented, whether
the result is a negative or positive match. On top of being reported to the
Luxembourg Financial Intelligence Unit (Cellule de Renseignement Financier
- CRF), sanction lists and PEP lists matches must be reported to the CSSF as
well. Automated controls should be implemented systematically, except if the
professional is able to demonstrate that such automation is not required as
a result of the nature and volume of business. There are simplified due diligence
arrangements in certain cases like for instance when the customer is a credit
or financial institutions subject to equivalent AML/CFT regulations.36

Enhanced Customer Due Diligence must be conducted for high-risk situations,
whilst the simplified approach will remain limited to lower risk situations.
Enhanced customer due diligence measures are required in situations which by
nature present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing (for
example non face-to-face business, foreign PEPs and cross-frontier correspondent
banking relationships with respondent institutions from non EU countries).
It includes the implementation of an appropriate risk-based procedure to detect
foreign PEPs. Beneficial Owners

For the purposes of AML/CFT, identifying the beneficial owner is paramount:
the beneficial owner of a legal person or a legal arrangement consists in one
or several natural persons which in the end, directly or indirectly own or
control in law or fact a legal person or a legal

35 www.ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/financialcrime/index_en.htm ; www.eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/conso
l-list_en.htm
36 Simplified due diligence arrangements are listed in Article 3-1 of the law.
Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 27

arrangement. The provision adds that this may be the case even if the thresholds
of the ownership or control (25% of shares or voting rights) are not met. Monitoring
of client relationships and transactions

Ongoing due diligence is required to enable banks and other professionals (i)
to detect complex or unusual transactions and (ii) identify persons, entities
and groups subject to prohibitions or restrictive measures in financial matters.
Internal policies and procedures

It is up to the professionals subject to AML/CFT regulations to tailor their
policies, procedures, processes and controls appropriately to their company
provided that they cover all AML/CFT professional duties. The requirement for
management approval of policies and procedures must be validated, and, if required,
regularly updated, by the person in charge of AML/CFT. The approval of senior
management is mandatory. For banks and investment firms, the approval of the
Board of Directors is also mandatory. In the case of banks and investment firms,
the Chief Compliance Officer must be the person responsible for AML/CFT controls.
For other entities, the person responsible for AML/CFT can be another member
of management, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent
conflicts of interest. That person’s independence, objectivity and ability
to make independent decisions have to be preserved. S/he must have adequate
professional experience and s/he is in charge of informing and training employees
accordingly. Finally, s/he is required to provide the Board of Directors and
senior management with regular reports and a formal annual summary report.
Reporting and audit obligations

The internal audit must be carried out on an annual basis. The regulator of
AML/CFT controls for the banking sector is the CSSF. There is a legal requirement
for a bank’s external auditor to report annually on the bank’s AML/CFT controls
and procedures to the CSSF. Such report should provide sample testing of KYC
files and of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) as well as examination of risk
assessments. Suspicious transactions (e.g. unusual transactions, cash transactions
above a certain threshold) must be reported to the CRF through the use of SARs.
Criminal and administrative penalties in case of non-compliance with AML/CFT
professional obligations Offenders who knowingly violate AML/CFT professional
obligations can face a fine up to €1,250,000. Those guilty of professional
negligence can face administrative and disciplinary sanctions: in addition
to fines which can be up to €250.000, the CSSF can impose warning, reprimand,
temporary or permanent prohibition of the right to carry out certain activities
or transactions, temporary or permanent removal of the right to exercise an
occupation for administrators, managers, de facto or de jure executives. c)
Future developments of the AML/CFT professional obligations

Directive (EU) 2015/849 of 20 may 2015 on the prevention of the use of the
financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing
(hereafter “4th Amnesty International – January 2016

28 28 Banks, arms and human rights violations

Directive”)37 has been published on 5 June 2015. It adds to the European Union's
regulatory arsenal used to fight money laundering and terrorist financing.
It must now be transposed by all member states by June 2017. However, some
measures have already been anticipated by CSSF regulations. The 4th Directive
introduces a series of new features, including focus on risk assessment and
corresponding risk based approach, and increased transparency. The Directive
brings in a wider range of sanctions and harsher penalties for institutions
which do not conform to these new rules. - Focus on risk assessment and corresponding
risk based approach The risk-based approach introduced in the Third Directive
has been strengthened by the 4th Directive with the aim of better identifying,
understanding and mitigating the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.
It contains explicit lists of risk factors to be taken into consideration by
banks and other obliged entities when performing their internal risk assessment
and in particular determining application of simplified or enhanced due diligence
measures depending on the nature and level (high or low) of the risks they
are exposed to. - Increased transparency in the identification of beneficial
owners Member states will be required to hold information on the beneficial
owners of legal entities incorporated within their territories in a national
central register. The concept of beneficial owner is also further defined in
the Directive: any natural person who exercises ownership or control over a
legal entity, either directly or indirectly and irrespective of their shareholding
percentage or of any other person having decision-making power.

B. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO ARMS-RELATED
FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Under international law, the Luxembourg state has an obligation to implement
and enforce its international obligations with respect to crimes under international
law and serious violations of human rights, and can be held liable for not
preventing the commission of such crimes and violations, if it was in a position
to do so. Even in cases where the Luxembourg state does not fulfil its international
obligations, corporations such as banks as well as individuals must comply
with legal rules applicable to crimes under international law and serious violations
of human rights.

37 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
20 may 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes
of money laundering or terrorist financing and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC
- www.eur-lex.europa.eu Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 29

1. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR LUXEMBOURG STATE’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ARMS-RELATED HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND CRIMES The Luxembourg legal framework38
does not only comprise of the laws proposed and voted by the country’s executive
and legislative branches of government. It also includes the provisions of
international law (agreements, treaties, conventions, etc.) when they have
been approved by national Luxembourg law. Once approved, the international
standards, derived from Luxembourg's international commitments, prevail over
the rules of domestic law, including those of constitutional value.39 International
treaties and conventions have binding effect on states which are parties to
them and create obligations for them. International treaties and conventions
usually provide that states undertake to take appropriate implementation measures,
and thus require the intervention of the national legislator. Commitments taken
by Luxembourg are binding on the Luxembourg state, which must take all appropriate
legal, administrative and other measures to implement the international norm
and make it a direct source of rights and obligations for legal persons (including
banks) and individuals. It is therefore the responsibility of the Luxembourg
state to adequately implement and enforce its international commitments. For
instance, the Convention on Cluster Munitions40 provides that states must take
appropriate implementation measures. However, apart from the law approving
the Convention, Luxembourg has not taken any normative text (law, regulation,
etc.) to implement the provisions of the Convention. States may be held liable
when they breach their international obligations and commit international wrongful
acts.41 States are obliged to fulfil their obligations with regards to

38 ACA-Europe seminar- "Soft law, legal standards and sources of law" - 18
December 2013 – Note on hierarchy of norms in Luxembourg law – http://www.aca-
europe.eu/seminars/Paris2013bis/Luxembourg.pdf 39 This primacy also concerns
both primary (EU treaties) and secondary EU legislation (regulations, directives
and certain decisions). In this way, any constitutional text or internal regulation
may be censured or disregarded if it does not conform to the rules of international
law that are binding on it. In Luxembourg, therefore, international and European
standards are at the very top of the legal system, followed by constitutional
standards, which constitute the highest standards in the absence of international
commitments. They prevail over the laws, over jurisprudence and over regulatory
standards of the executive authority. Regulatory standards constitute all of
the rules enacted by the executive authority in Luxembourg. In Luxembourg's
domestic legal system, the executive authority's acts are ranked in the following
manner (in decreasing order of authority): Grand-Ducal regulations and, of
equal status in their respective fields of competence, the regulations of public
corporations and regulations of professional bodies; Regulations of the Government
in council and ministerial regulations; Municipal regulations, which are subject
to compliance with the regulatory acts issued by the central government (Grand-Duchy
and ministries); Orders and other decisions or measures of an individual nature.
Circulars: the governmental and administrative authorities may adopt internal
directives in the form of circulars or instructions, which will act as guidelines.
Although the circulars do not constitute a legal standard that is binding on
the citizens and are only mandatory for the agents to whom they are addressed,
they may in certain cases bind their author with regard to the citizens. The
authority that created the circular and the subordinate authorities are effectively
required to conform to the instructions in the internal directives. 40 Op.cit.
41 See Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts – 2001 –
United Nations. Article 2 provides that there is an internationally wrongful
act “when conduct consisting of an action or omission (a) is attributable to
the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international
obligation of the State”. Amnesty International – January 2016

30 30 Banks, arms and human rights violations

crimes under international law which means taking action to prevent the commission
of those crimes, including by preventing and eradicating arms transfers which
facilitate them, whenever they are in a position to do so. States may incur
international liability if they knowingly provide arms and other material support
which aids or assists other states, groups or individuals with the commission
of internationally wrongful acts such as serious human rights violations or
crimes under international law.42

2. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR BANKS’ RESPONSIBILITY FOR ARMS-RELATED
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND CRIMES a) Banks’ responsibility to respect human
rights Even in the absence of full compliance of the Luxembourg state with
certain international obligations, banks still have certain human rights responsibilities.
Those responsibilities have been encapsulated, among other things, in the United
Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the UNGPs).43

Principle 11 of the UNGP clearly states that business enterprise (of which
banks and financial institutions are a type) should respect human rights. The
commentary to this principle clarifies that this responsibility applies “wherever
business enterprises operate” and exists “independently of States’ abilities
and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations,” while not
diminishing those obligations. It explains further that the responsibility
to respect human rights “exists over and above compliance with national laws
and regulations protecting human rights.” This means that Luxemburg’s financial
sector cannot claim the lack of domestic legally binding norms to justify a
failure to adopt and put in place the necessary policies and procedures to
ensure it does not support, through its financial activities, prohibited activities
in the arms sector. UNGP do not create new legal obligations. However, the
UNGP state that “companies should always treat the risk of causing or contributing
to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue”44 and encourage them
to incorporate the responsibility to respect human rights “in binding contractual
requirements between companies and their corporate and private clients and
suppliers.” 45

To meet this responsibility, business enterprises should have in place appropriate
policies and a “human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate
and account for how they address their impacts on human rights.”46

42 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
Acts, with commentaries, International Law Commission, Yearbook of International
Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two, Article 16, p. 36. 43 “Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect
and Remedy” Framework”, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General
on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business
enterprises, John Ruggie, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011). https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/2
44 “Frequently asked questions about the Guiding principles on business and
human rights” – United Nations Human rights - Office of the High commissioner
– 2014 - Question 6. 45 “Frequently asked questions about the Guiding principles
on business and human rights” – United Nations Human rights - Office of the
High commissioner – 2014 - Q7 46 Principle 15, UNGPs. Amnesty International
– January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 31

b) Legal framework for Banks’ criminal liability for financing arms used for
commission of crimes under international law Even if corporations per se cannot
be prosecuted before international criminal tribunals, corporate executives,
like any individual, may be held liable for crimes and human rights violations
under international law. Indeed, even though, in principle, international treaties
and conventions do not create rights and obligations for individuals and legal
persons of the state which approved the international norm until the national
legislator has implemented them into domestic law,47 intermediate provision
of domestic law is not required for the attribution of criminal responsibility
to individuals under international criminal law. Crimes under international
law are the most heinous crimes and their punishment is in the interest of
the international community as a whole, as they undermine the fundamental values
protected by international law. Some crimes under international law such as
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes have been codified by the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In addition, some conduct
which amounts to crimes under international law is also criminalized by four
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Protocols. There are also several other
international treaties which define and criminalize certain acts which fall
under this category such as the Genocide Convention of 1948 or the Convention
against Torture of 1984. For precise definitions of genocide, crime against
humanity and war crimes, please see appendix 1. International criminal law
has long recognized criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting. Individuals
and, if domestic law allows for that, corporations may be held criminally liable
for providing necessary means (such as arms, ammunition and money) for the
commission of serious violations of international law as this conduct may amount
to aiding, assisting, abetting or otherwise facilitating those crimes.48 Trials
related to the responsibility for crimes under international law, often under
the doctrine of aiding and abetting, have taken place in various jurisdictions.
Under this doctrine persons can be held criminally liable if they have provided
material or other support for the commission of a crime, knowing that the crime
would be committed.49 The support they have provided needs to have a substantial
contribution to the crime but the presence of the accused at the scene of the
crime is not needed.50

For instance, Frans van Anraat, a Dutch businessman who was Saddam Hussein’s
most important supplier of chemicals used for the production of mustard gas
utilized in attacks on the civilian population both in Iraq and Iran during
the 1980s, was convicted of complicity in

47 The question of the direct application of treaties is a complex question
of international law which will not be analysed in this report. 48 Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court, Article 25(3)(c); Prosecutor v Charles
Taylor, Special Court for Sierra Leone, Judgment of 18 May 2012; Prosecutor
v Momcilo Perisic, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
Appeals Chamber, Judgment of 28 February 2013; Prosecutor v Mile Mrksic et
al, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber,
Judgment of 5 May 2009. 49 Ibid. Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic (Case No. IT-98-32-T)
29 November 2002, Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment,
10 December 1998. 50 Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia, (Case No. IT-94- 1-T), Judgment, 7 July 1997; Prosecutor
v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, 10 December 1998. Amnesty
International – January 2016

32 32 Banks, arms and human rights violations

war crimes. As the Court put it: “he was very aware of the fact that in the
given circumstances the use of this gas could not and would not fail to materialize.
In different words: the defendant was very aware of the fact that –‘in the
ordinary course of events’- the gas was going to be used”.51 Frans van Anraat
was found “guilty of being an accessory to provide the opportunity and the
means for the proven attacks with mustard gas” and “guilty of the offence of
complicity in being an accessory to a violation of the laws and customs of
war” and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. It is noteworthy that in its
decision, the Court put a significant weight on the awareness and knowledge
of Frans van Anraat of the situation in Iraq and therefore the “final destination
and use” of his supplies. Current international criminal law does not generally
impose international criminal responsibility on corporations. However, if domestic
law allows for corporate criminal liability, corporations may be held liable
by domestic courts for crimes and human rights violations under international
law. Luxembourg law provides for the criminal liability of legal persons and
applies to all corporate entities (including public legal entities) with the
exception of the state and the local government entities.52 In general, under
Luxembourg criminal law, a corporate entity may be held liable if a crime or
an offence has been committed in its name and its interest by one of its statutory
organs or by one or more of its directors, whether de jure or de facto.53 There
is no limitation on the crimes and offences which a corporate entity is able
to commit. The criminal code is applicable to corporate entities, subject to
certain conditions specific to corporate entities and with the exception of
contraventions (only provisions relating to crimes and offences are applicable
to corporate entities). The law applies the principle of cumulative liability
of corporate entities and individuals. Therefore, provisions of the Luxembourg
Criminal Code relating, for instance, to serious violations of humanitarian
law like genocide, crime against humanity and war crimes,54 are applicable
to corporations. It results from the development above that both banks (as
corporations) and their managers and employees (as individuals) can potentially
be held liable if they provide the opportunity and the means, through financing,
for the commission of serious human rights violations and crimes under international
law. Financing is not a neutral activity: corporate liability can be engaged
in case of assisting and aiding the perpetration of human rights violations.
Knowledge of the final destination and use of the means which are provided
is a sufficient ground for criminal liability.

51 Public Prosecutor v. Frans Cornelis Adrianus van Anraat Court of Appeal
in The Hague, Netherlands, 9 May 2007 (http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/168/Van-Anraat/);
52 Loi du 3 mars 2010 introduisant la responsabilité pénale des personnes morales
dans le Code pénal et dans le Code d'instruction criminelle et modifiant le
Code pénal, le Code d'instruction criminelle et certaines autres dispositions
législatives. Mémorial A – N°36, 11 March 2011, p. 641. 53 A "statutory organ"
is defined as one or more physical or legal persons which have specific function
in the organisation of the corporate entity, in accordance with the relevant
law governing that entity. This can be a function of administration, direction,
representation or control. 54 Luxembourg Criminal Code - TITRE Ibis. –
« Des violations graves du droit international humanitaire ». Amnesty International
– January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 33

“Both banks (as corporations) and their managers and employees (as individuals)
can potentially be held liable if they provide the opportunity and the means,
through financing, for the commission of serious human rights violations and
crimes under international law.”

It is therefore in the best interest of banks and other financial institutions
that they have policies and procedures in place to avoid incurring potential
liability in relation to conduct prohibited under international law such as
serious violations of human rights, violations of international humanitarian
law or other conduct which may amount to crimes.

3. ARMS-RELATED FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW Appendix
1 provides an overview of the international legal framework relating to arms
and more specifically under which criteria arms may be regarded as illegal
with precise references to the applicable international norms: international
human rights law, international humanitarian law (IHL), international criminal
law). The section below provides the key aspects of such legal rules. Application
of the international legal rules to financial activities results in prohibition
of the following activities: - Financial activities related to arms which are
per se prohibited by international law and therefore prohibited on a permanent
basis and under any circumstances; - Financial activities related to arms which
are prohibited only when used to commit prohibited purposes such as serious
human rights violations, violations of international humanitarian law or crimes
under international law.

a) Arms which are per se prohibited International law prohibits, inter alia,
the use of biological and chemical weapons, expanding and exploding bullets,
blinding laser weapons, arms that cause injury by fragments which are not detectable
by X ray in the human body, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.
These arms are prohibited in all circumstances. All the treaties and conventions
prohibiting these arms were approved by Luxembourg and are therefore binding
upon the Luxembourg state. Please refer to Appendix 1 for more details about
these arms and the applicable international norms. Amnesty International –
January 2016

34 34 Banks, arms and human rights violations

There are also domestic provisions prohibiting certain types of arms like certain
devices designed to harm people and goods using fires and explosions. Please
refer to Appendix 1 for a more detailed description of these prohibitions.
Example of arms which are per se prohibited55

The use of landmines in Darfur, 2003-2004 Most parts of Sudan, especially the
South, are infested with landmines that kill, injure and disable people. The
south of the Darfur region is also affected by the proliferation of landmines.
In 1997, several types of landmines were found in Sudan. The landmines had
been originally produced in the following countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, China,
Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, North Korea, Poland, Russia, South Africa,
UK, USA and former Yugoslavia. In 2000, anti-personnel mines were found in
Sudan: the original producer countries were Belgium, China, Egypt, Israel,
Italy, USA and former USSR. A report by the UN OHCHR on 7 May 2004 estimated
that areas of the Darfur region are littered with unexploded ordnance and landmines,
some of which are plainly visible on the desert surface.56

b) Arms which are prohibited only when used to commit prohibited purposes International
law also prohibits the use of arms for undesirable purposes such as violations
of human rights, violations of international humanitarian law or commission
of crimes under international law. In particular, international law puts a
ban on: - the use of arms to intentionally direct attacks against civilians
or conduct indiscriminate attacks (attacks of a nature to strike military objectives
and civilians without distinction) and disproportionate attacks, which may
amount to war crimes. All parties to a war must distinguish between military
targets and civilians. Any deliberate attack on a civilian or civilian building
– such as homes, medical facilities, schools or government buildings – is a
war crime57. Moreover, civilian causalities and damage to civilian buildings
must not be excessive in relation to the expected military gain. - the use
of arms destined to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or
other crimes under international law such as for example torture or enforced
disappearances. Please refer to Appendix 1 for a more detailed description
of these prohibitions.

55 More examples can be found on www.amnesty.org. 56 Sudan: Arming the Perpetrators
of Grave Abuses in Darfur, Amnesty International, 16 November 2004, p.34. 57
Providing the building has not been taken over for military use Amnesty International
– January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 35

Examples of arms used for prohibited purposes58

Use of white phosphorus by the Government of Myanmar in 2012 A deliberate attack
on peaceful protestors was conducted in November 2012 by the police. During
that month local villagers set up protest camps around the Letpadaung mine
area and hundreds of monks from nearby monasteries joined the protests. The
main protest camp was located outside Myanmar Wanbao’s compound near the mining
area. When protestors refused to disperse the police started throwing ‘fire
bombs’, later identified as white phosphorus incendiary munitions. The police
continued to throw incendiary white phosphorus munitions at the protesters
despite seeing people’s clothing and bodies catch fire, and even threw incendiaries
at people who were leaving the camps. More than 100 people were injured, some
suffering horrific burns and lifelong disability.59

Bombing of MSF hospital in Afghanistan, 2015 On October 3, the Médecins sans
Frontières (MSF) surgical hospital in Kunduz in northern Afghanistan was hit
by repeated airstrikes, killing 30 people, including staff members and patients.
On October 7, President Obama apologised for the bombing to the president of
Médecins San Frontières.60

Air strikes by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, 2015 10 members of a family, including
five women and four children were killed in a July 9 airstrike that destroyed
the Musaab bin Omar school in the village of Tahrur, north of Aden. The school
had been housing families displaced by the conflict between a Saudi-led military
coalition and Houthi armed groups and their allies, which took control of the
capital Sanaa and large swaths of the country in late 2014. Ten other relatives,
mostly children, were injured in the attack. In the ruins of the Musaab bin
Omar school, there was no sign of any military activity that could have made
the site a military target. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in such
strikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities,
or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict between
mid-June and mid-July 2015. The Houthis and their allies are the declared targets
of the Saudi-led air campaign. In reality, however, it is civilians who all
too often pay the price of this war. The United States, meanwhile, has provided
the weapons (e.g. U.S.- designed MK80 and MK-82 general-purpose bomb) that
have made many of these killings possible.61

58 More examples can be found on www.amnesty.org. 59 Myanmar: Open for business?
Corporate crime and abuses at Myanmar copper mine, Amnesty International, February
2015, p.6. 60 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/10/afghanistan-bombing-of-kunduz-hospital-a-
deplorable-loss-of-life-that-must-be-investigated/, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/10/afghanistan-bo
mbing-of-kunduz-hospital-a-deplorable-
loss-of-life-that-must-be-investigated/ , http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34467631
61 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/the-human-carnage-of-saudi-arabias-war-in-yemen/
Amnesty International – January 2016

36 36 Banks, arms and human rights violations

III. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the key findings of this research, AI has made a series of
recommendations to improve the legal framework and practices on financing and
investment in arms in the Luxembourg financial centre. There are recommendations
addressed to the Luxembourg government. There are also recommendations addressed
to banks. Though the research was focused on banks, the recommendations below
are applicable to all financial activities, whether they are conducted by banks
or other financial institutions. These recommendations are not only addressed
to the Luxembourg financial centre, but to the entire financial sector in Europe
and the world. This report’s recommendations are valid for all countries where
legislation is incomplete or non-existent on arms-related financial activities.
Luxembourg has already made some progress on this issue by legislating against
the financing of cluster munitions.

A. KEY FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH

The key findings of the research conducted by AI are the following:

1. DOMESTIC LUXEMBOURG LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON ARMS-RELATED FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
IS INCOMPLETE With the exception of prohibition of financing activities relating
to cluster munitions and financing activities related to arms destined to terrorism,
Luxembourg has taken no measures to expressly prohibit all financial operations
related to illegal arms or arms destined to illegal use. To this respect, Luxembourg
has not fulfilled its international obligations with regards to crimes under
international law and serious violations of human rights. Indeed, as described
under Part II of this report, fulfilling such responsibility means taking action
to prevent the commission of those crimes and violations, including by preventing
and eradicating financing of arms which may facilitate them.

Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 37

2. A LACK OF TRANSPARENT ARMS SECTOR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED
AI research was based on a representative sample of top banks operating in
Luxembourg. Of the five banks that accepted AI’s invitation to dialogue, BNP
and ING were the only ones that provided evidence of a written and publicly
available document stating their policy on the arms sector. Only ING and BNP
have a list of written commitments restricting their field of activity on illegal
arms. However, these commitments are incomplete and questionable in some respects.
Without going into the detail of the changes that could be made to these policies,
we can nevertheless give the following examples: even in the case of arms which
are banned under international law, BNP states that it will assess the risk
profiles of recipient countries before deciding whether or not to finance transactions.
BNP should purely and simply exclude the financing of these arms, irrespective
of the country that wants to buy, sell or use them, because they are prohibited
and therefore illegal by their very nature. Questioned on this point by AI,
BNP stated that in the case of prohibited arms, transactions are rejected if
the nature of the arms is prohibited. However, the written policy remains ambiguous
on this point and should be rewritten.

3. BANKS OFTEN HAVE AN INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES The policies on arms adopted by the banks
should not only abide by Luxembourg laws, but they should also comply with
international law. As explained in Part II of this report, banks, as any other
corporation, are expected to comply with international human rights law, international
humanitarian law and international criminal law regardless of whether the state
in which they operate has enacted the relevant national legislation of whether
it enforces it in practice. Asked about their obligations in the field of defence
and arms, the banks made a point of mentioning the AML/CFT Luxembourg legislation.
Although compliance with such legislation excludes certain illegal arms financing
operations (financing of arms to be used for international terrorism), it does
not prohibit the financing of arms when they are not for the use of terrorists.
Non terrorism-related prohibited uses of arms are not within the scope of AML/CFT
legislation. For instance, financing of arms used by a state to conduct repression
on civilians falls out of the scope of the AML/CFT legislation (because arms
are used by a state, not a terrorist armed group), but is nevertheless subject
to international law prohibitions and could potentially trigger liability of
the bank. Likewise, the financing of arms which are per se illegal, like chemical
arms, is prohibited by international law, but not by the AML/CFT legislation.
The final destination of arms for which finance is sought must be examined
with reference to a series of national and international standards and not
only the prohibition on financing terrorism. The banks’ lack of understanding
of the prohibitions in relation to arms-related activities under international
law exposes them to the risk of inadvertently contributing to human rights
violations and potentially to criminal liability.

Amnesty International – January 2016

38 38 Banks, arms and human rights violations

4. SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN INTERNAL DETECTION AND MONITORING PROCEDURES FOR ARMS-
RELATED TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED The success of any responsible policy
on financing and investing in the arms sector requires effective internal checking
procedures. Indeed, even when banks publicly commit to not financing certain
types of arms, they still need to put in place internal procedures that will
ensure compliance with this commitment. The AI research therefore paid particular
attention to procedural aspects of bank policies. AI asked several questions
to each bank about their internal procedures but was not in a position to check
whether the answers provided by the banks were reflecting the reality of internal
practices. Statements of intent are not enough. In a sector involving such
complex financial flows as the arms trade, commitments run the risk of remaining
a dead letter if they are not accompanied by strict implementation procedures.
The fact that a bank makes a written commitment in a public document not to
finance cluster munitions does not mean that the bank will in no circumstance
undertake this type of financing. Even when the stated intentions are sincere,
implementation of this restriction requires rigorous internal procedures that
are subject to different levels of control. Any breach of these rules, whether
involuntary (because of human error) or deliberate (because of malicious intent
by an employee or because senior management grants a dispensation to conclude
a transaction) may result in the acceptance of a transaction that is contrary
to company commitments and, in many cases, against the law.

As a consequence, Know Your Client/Client Due Diligence (KYC/CDD) procedures
are key to detect arms transactions related to terrorism but also to detect
and prevent transactions relating to other types of illegal arms or illegal
uses of arms. KYC/CDD procedures require banks to collect certain information
about their clients. They should allow banks to ascertain the origin of funds
and the legitimacy of operations, which must tally with their knowledge of
the client. This procedure also includes verification of "atypical operations."
The requirement to identify the real economic beneficiaries of transactions
should allow to determine the likely end-use of the arms, and therefore are
also relevant for the detection of transactions of arms destined to be used
for crimes under international law or serious violations of human rights. For
instance, investigating the end-use of a consignment of arms before agreeing
to finance the production allows the bank to ensure that it will not be used
by individuals, groups or states using them for the commission of human rights
abuses or crimes under international law. The identification of arms transactions
which may result in criminal conduct, or arms which are prohibited per se may
rely on existing internal KYC procedures. Where the banks have the necessary
internal procedures to ensure that they are not financing international terrorism,
they can at the same time check and ensure that they are not financing arms
destined to regions where atrocities are committed or to end-users who may
divert them for prohibited uses. It is difficult to have a precise idea of
internal procedures put in place by the banks and therefore to evaluate their
reliability because of a lack of information provided by the banks on this
issue. AI regrets that the banks refused to provide more precise information
on certain internal control procedures or complete sets of statistics on projects
rejected on the grounds of their association with arms. It is difficult to
understand why the banks refused to provide this information on the grounds
of confidentiality when this data does not allow the banks’ clients to be identified.
Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 39

However, by reading the policies published by the banks, listening to the comments
made by them during the interviews and also reading the CSSF activities reports
on the implementation of AML/CFT procedures in the banking sector,62 AI was
able to identify certain risk areas in the procedures. The deficiencies spotted
by the CSSF tallies with the observations made by AI while conducting this
research. These procedural deficiencies are as prejudicial to the fight against
terrorism financing as they are to the fight against financing of illegal arms
which are not related to terrorism. The main procedural deficiencies identified
by the CSSF are: - Lack of documentation on the origin of funds; - Inadequate
checking of client identity/inadequate customer due diligence, including absence
of name matching control with official check lists like sanctions lists and
PEPs lists;63 - No application of enhanced due diligence requirements in cases
where they are compulsory; - Weakness in the analysis of risk inherent to the
clients’ activities; - Insufficient involvement of the compliance officer in
the supervisions of transactions; - Lack of adequate training for employees.64

Based on AI research, the observations below can also be made: - It is a concern
that internal detection, control and decision making procedures to deal with
risky clients and transactions include derogation procedures that permit acceptance
of transactions previously judged to be risky or unacceptable by internal control
procedures. For example, ING’s policy states that even in the case of transactions
initially judged to be “unacceptable” in terms of the company’s CSR policy,
derogations may apply and transactions may be accepted, in exceptional circumstances.
ING does not say what criteria are used for accepting transactions previously
judged to be “unacceptable” and provides no monitoring statistics on this issue.
Similarly, in its policy on defence, the BNP Group reserves the right, in exceptional
circumstances and after detailed analysis, to finance arms sales to countries
that have, however, been judged to be sensitive: “For the “most sensitive countries”,
the decision to finance a transaction can only be exceptional. The decision
is taken after a reinforced due diligence performed by the Compliance teams,
following an escalation process over sighted by the Group Compliance (Financial
Security) teams.”65

62 Rapport 2014, chapter 13 « Les moyens de la surveillance », page 250 and
Rapport 2013, chapter 13 « Les moyens de la surveillance » page 236. Available
on www.cssf.lu. In 2014, the CSSF conducted 8 on-site AML/CTF audits in the
banking sector (more were conducted in the overall financial sector). 63 Op.cit.
Section II.A.2 of this report 64 This deficiency is not mentioned in the CSSF
report but was mentioned by a CSSF official in a PwC press release :
« Des règles renforcées pour contrer le blanchiment des capitaux » - Communique
de presse – 21 février 2013 – PwC Luxembourg - http://www.pwc.lu/en/press-releases/2013/aml.html
65 P.6 in Corporate Social responsibility – sector policy – defence. The document
also states that: “The Amnesty International – January 2016

40 40 Banks, arms and human rights violations

- There is a lack of training and awareness-raising for employees with respect
to arms- related transactions. Most of the banks included in the survey have
introduced training procedures to ensure the correct application of KYC procedures,
particularly those on money laundering and financing terrorism, as well as
other trainings relating to various CSR policies. However, this training is
rather limited in comparison with the complexity of the rules on defence and
arms. For example, BNP Paribas has a training programme: “Training on the Implementation
of Sector Policies” including defence and arms but employees are not provided
with systematic training on all sector policies. It is therefore possible that
they receive no training on defence-related issues. Moreover, at the banks
that provided statistics on training, the number of employees trained is low
as a proportion of their workforce. Without adequate training, there is reason
to fear that the employees whose jobs it is to analyse clients and transactions
and detect risk do not have the skills to do their job properly. - Adequate
compliance with existing AML/CFT rules and also with all arms-related international
obligations requires significant efforts and human means. Indeed, even though
such compliance can – and should - be partly achieved through automation, it
also involves largely qualitative information that does require manual intervention
and involvement by experienced staff. To this respect, it is worrying that
the CSSF flagged lack of involvement of the compliance officer. It is also
of concern that there has been a decrease in Luxembourg banking sector number
of staff in 2014 (by 2% compared to 2013),66 as it may have a direct impact
on number of staff involved in customer due diligence work.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LUXEMBOURG STATE

1. STRICTLY PROHIBIT FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO ILLEGAL ARMS AND ARMS
DESTINED TO ILLEGAL USE Luxembourg must put a ban on all financials activities
in relation with illegal arms (i.e. arms which are per se prohibited, for instance
cluster munitions or chemical arms), or arms destined to an illegal use (i.e.
arms used to commit crimes under international law and violations of human
rights). Please see Part II for description of these 2 types of arms. All financial
activities undertaken for or on behalf of individuals or legal persons that
conduct activities (i.e. develop, manufacture, assemble, convert, modify, repair,
acquire, use, possess, hold, transport, stockpile, keep, sell or transfer)
relating to an illegal arm or an arm destined to an illegal use, or an essential
component of such illegal arm or arm destined to

Group has therefore established a list of particularly sensitive countries,
based notably on the following criteria: (…) known human rights violations.”
66 Luxembourg banking insights 2015 – KPMG - http://www.kpmg.com/lu/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pag
es/luxembourg-banking-
insights.aspx Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 41

an illegal use, must fall into the scope of the legal prohibition. An “essential
component” of an arm can be defined using the following two criteria: - The
component was primarily developed or designed for use in the arm; - The component
plays a direct role in the lethality of the arm. An example is the case of
Frans van Anraat who supplied chemicals which were an essential component of
the production of mustard gas (please see Part II, section B.2.b) about Frans
van Anraat’s case). Financial activities which must be prohibited include,
but are not limited to:67

a) Financing persons conducting activities relating to illegal arms or arms
destined to an illegal use Banks must refuse to finance, through loans or any
other form of financial support, any person conducting activities relating
to illegal arms or arms destined to an illegal use: - Where financing is made
through loans and other forms of financial support; - Where financing is made
through capital market instruments and banks assist such persons in their capacity
as arranger, dealer or investor. As an arranger: banks should not help persons
conducting activities relating to illegal arms or arms used for illegal purposes
to structure the issuance of securities on the market; As a dealer: banks should
not help persons conducting activities relating to illegal arms or arms destined
to an illegal use to find investors when issuing their own securities on the
market. In its capacity as a dealer, the financial institution indirectly contributes
to financing; As an investor: banks should not subscribe to all or some of
the securities issued by persons conducting activities relating to illegal
arms or arms destined to an illegal use. By investing in persons conducting
activities relating to illegal arms or arms destined to an illegal use, banks
contribute directly to their financing.

b) Providing guarantees to persons conducting activities relating to illegal
arms or arms destined to an illegal use Bank must not arrange guarantees for
persons conducting activities relating to illegal arms or arms destined to
an illegal use to cover the risks to which they are exposed. Neither should
banks issue guarantees for a third party to cover the risk represented by the
person conducting the activity relating to illegal arms or arms destined to
an illegal use (for example, by granting a letter of credit).

67 For definitions and explanations about the financial concepts on this page,
please refer to http://www.investopedia.com/ Amnesty International – January
2016

42 42 Banks, arms and human rights violations

c) Providing services to persons carrying out activities relating to illegal
arms or arms destined to an illegal use Banks must not provide financial services
to persons conducting activities relating to illegal arms or destined to an
illegal use, especially in relation to instruments of payment for transactions
(for example documentary credit, advice, insurance, fund management). d) Portfolio
management on behalf of or related to persons conducting activities relating
to illegal arms or arms destined to an illegal use Banks must not manage funds
on behalf of a person conducting activities relating to illegal arms or arms
destined to an illegal use. They must not undertake portfolio management activities
for clients dealing with companies conducting activities relating to illegal
arms or arms destined to an illegal use, or invest in portfolios comprising
any such companies.68

In order to guarantee its effectiveness, such legislation should provide for
criminal sanctions against banks (as legal persons) and individuals performing
the activities of the banks, when they knowingly violate the prohibition.69

2. TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ENSURE THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PROHIBITION Luxembourg must take all appropriate legal,
administrative and other national measures to ensure the effective implementation
and enforcement of the prohibitions, and in particular define professional
obligations applicable to banks and sanctions for non-compliance. Clarifying
the legal obligations on banks would also provide greater legal security by
clearly and precisely defining which is legal and illegal. It would remove
any ambiguity regarding the extent of the obligations of banks. Appropriate
measures must include, without limitation: a) Imposing on banks professional
obligations aiming at detecting and preventing transactions related to illegal
arms and arms destined to an illegal use (human rights due diligence) Such
obligations would include in particular:

68 For the sake of recollection, 2 types of portfolio management can be found:
-Passive management (also called indexing): the objective here is to replicate
the performance of a reference market (for example, an index such as the CAC
40 or the Dow Jones). The manager generally has no or a limited role because
the aim is only to replicate the performance of one or more indexes. -Active
management: this does not consist in merely replicating the performance of
a reference index. There is a human element actively managing a portfolio.
Active managers rely on a series of analytical tools and their own judgement
and experience in making investment decisions on what securities to buy, hold
and sell. 69 The law of 4 June 2009 on the adoption of the Convention on Cluster
Munitions, which was opened for signature in Oslo on 3 December 2008, makes
provision for such sanctions (article 4). Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 43

- Performance of human rights due diligence with respect to arms-related transactions
(customer due diligence, relationship due diligence, transaction risk assessment,
country and geographic areas risk…); - Reporting of the key outcomes of the
due diligence to the CSSF. Such measures could leverage on existing CFT rules
but would constitute a separate set of rules as their goal exceeds the scope
of CFT rules. They should diverge from them as necessary in order to take into
account the specificities resulting from international rules applicable to
arms (as described in Part II of this report). In particular, financing arms
destined to a state is not prohibited under the AML/CFT rules (because in such
case arms are not destined to a terrorist group) but may be prohibited under
other international law provisions if these arms are destined to be used by
the state to commit serious violations of human rights. For instance, financing
the bombs provided by the US to Saudi Arabia for air strikes on civilians is
illegal (please see Part II, section B.3 about these airstrikes). AI’s recommendation
to leverage on existing AML/CFT regulations should not be interpreted as an
endorsement by AI of these procedures. Assessing these procedures is outside
the scope of this report. However, AI considers that, in absence of other regulations,
they constitute a good starting point for arms-related due diligence.

b) Applying criminal and administrative penalties for non-compliance with these
professional obligations. These sanctions should be tough enough to be a real
incentive for banks to implement their professional obligations.

c) Introducing adequate control and supervision procedures Luxembourg must
appoint a responsible body to supervise the correct application of arms-related
laws and regulations in the finance sector. This responsibility should come
under the jurisdiction of the CSSF, which is already responsible for this task
with regard to AML/CFT rules. It would then be the CSSF’s task to review the
banks’ internal procedures, especially with regard to the detection of risk.
Additional control with respect to arms-related financial activities should
also be operated through the authorisation regime applicable to brokering activities
(which include financial activities accessory to brokering) based on the Grand-Ducal
Regulation on the brokering of defence-related products and dual use goods
issued on 5 August 2015.70

d) Closing loopholes in the legislation Today, banks can be held criminally
liable under Luxembourg domestic law only if they knowingly finance cluster
munition or wilfully finance arms destined to terrorism. In other words, it
means that banks can avoid criminal liability if it cannot be demonstrated

70 Op.cit. Amnesty International – January 2016

44 44 Banks, arms and human rights violations

that they were aware of the nature and/or end-use of arms they were financing.
This restriction raises some concerns as it gives a loophole to unscrupulous
banks: those banks can deliberately (and not by negligence) avoid to put in
place the KYC procedures which would enable them to know which illegal transactions
take place, and just let them happen. As negligence in procedures implementation
is only subject to fines and administrative sanctions, unscrupulous banks can
conveniently choose to be negligent in the implementation of such procedures,
and thus indirectly and passively enable illegal transactions without leaving
trace which would otherwise make them subject to criminal liability.

It does not mean that “knowingly” and “wilfully” should be removed from law.
Indeed, even the most diligent bank, fulfilling all KYC requirements, may face
the risk of unknowingly and in good faith not detecting an illegal transaction,
given the very high volume of transactions it has to handle, and criminal liability
in such cases might be unfair. However, in order to avoid that the restriction
for criminal liability (based on deliberate intent) be used as a loophole by
rogue banks, such restriction must be coupled with a very tough and strict
enforcement of the KYC obligations. In other words, the excuse of not knowing
something illegal is happening might be acceptable only in those circumstances
in which the bank can demonstrate that it had put in place, and strictly followed,
all the procedures which should have enabled it to know and that, for exceptional
reasons, these procedures failed to meet their goal.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS TO BANKS

1. COMMIT TO STOP ALL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO ILLEGAL ARMS OR ARMS DESTINED TO
ILLEGAL USES As explained earlier in this report, the responsibility to respect
human rights exists over and above compliance with national laws. This means
that Luxembourg-based banks must abide by existing domestic prohibitions on
arms, but they must also adopt and put in place the necessary policies and
procedures to ensure they do not support, through their financial activities,
arms which are per se illegal and the use of which is illegal under international
law. It is therefore in the best interest of banks to have appropriate due
diligence in place to avoid complicity in the commission of crimes under international
law and serious violations of human rights. In order to remain transparent
to their clients, shareholders, the government and civil society, all banks
must publish their policy on arms. They must also make other information available
about the implementation of their prohibition policy by providing figures on
the number of transactions rejected, their geographical distribution, etc.
Banks must publicly commit, through clear written public documents, to stop
all financial activities in relation with illegal arms (i.e. arms which are
per se prohibited, for instance cluster munitions or chemical arms), or arms
destined to an illegal use (i.e. arms used to commit crimes under international
law and violations of human rights). Such financial activities include financing
through loans and capital market instruments, Amnesty International – January
2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 45

provision of guarantees, provision of financial services, portfolio management,
and any other financial activity undertaken for or on behalf of individuals
or legal persons that conduct activities (i.e. develop, manufacture, assemble,
convert, modify, repair, acquire, use, possess, hold, transport, stockpile,
keep, sell or transfer) relating to an illegal arm or an arm destined to an
illegal use, or an essential component of such illegal arm or arm destined
to an illegal use. Please see detailed list in section B above.

2. ENSURE EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH COMMITMENT THROUGH INTERNAL CONTROL
PROCEDURES Unwittingly financing illegal arms trafficking is one of the biggest
risks to which the banks are exposed. That is why it is essential that they
strengthen their customer knowledge through reinforced due diligence procedures
and do everything possible to detect risky clients or transactions. Knowledge
of their clients and the transactions they are asked to undertake is a fundamental
responsibility of banks. Such knowledge is all the more necessary given that
the Luxembourg government wants to use financial institutions to obtain information.71

Banks must take all the appropriate measures to ensure compliance with international
rules prohibiting illegal arms and arms destined to illegal uses, by implementing
procedures to detect and prevent illegal transactions. It requires better customer
knowledge. It is in the best interest of banks to put in place thorough procedures
to ensure "human rights due diligence" which will help them to mitigate the
risk of violating the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights or potentially incur other liability. KYC procedures and other internal
due diligence procedures must be reinforced in order to identify the real economic
beneficiaries of arms-related transactions; their intended and actual end-users
and end use so as to determine the likelihood of those arms being in fact prohibited
under national and international law or their use (no matter if they are prohibited
as such or not) resulting in the commission of serious human rights violations
or crimes under international law. To this purpose, it makes sense for Luxembourg-based
banks to leverage on the procedures they have already implemented for AML/CFT
compliance purposes. However, as explained earlier in this report, the scope
of the prohibitions imposed on arms by international law goes beyond the mere
prohibition of arms destined to terrorism. Banks must therefore adapt and complement
their existing AML/CFT rules to give them a broader scope. For instance, all
clients and transactions within the arms sector should be flagged as “sensitive”
or “at risk” and subject to enhanced due diligence, even if they have absolutely
no link with terrorism,

71 Article 10 (4) b) of the bill on the organization of the State Intelligence
Services (SRE) places specific obligations on financial institutions in this
respect. This provision states, “for one or several events of a serious nature
and that deal with (…) activities related to the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and defence-related products and associated technologies,”
the SRE are authorized to request banks and other financial institutions to
provide information about banking transactions involving bank accounts of persons
under investigation and their real economic beneficiaries. Financial institutions
must respond to such requests “without delay” (The comments on article 10 of
the bill state that “In particular in the area of the proliferation (…), the
SRE needs to check the use of intermediary companies, front-men and concealed
bank transfers.”). Amnesty International – January 2016

46 46 Banks, arms and human rights violations

because arms can be destined to illegal uses other than terrorism. In particular,
the following deficiencies must be fixed: - The insufficient customer and transaction
due diligence procedures; - The derogation procedures that permit acceptance
of transactions previously judged to be risky or unacceptable by internal control
procedures; - The lack of training and awareness-raising for employees with
respect to arms-related transaction; - The lack of human resources dedicated
to the detection and prevention of arms- related transactions.

3. IMPOSE BINDING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS TO CLIENTS AND SUPPLIERS Banks must
strengthen the contractual obligations they place on the individuals and legal
persons with which they do business and make compliance a condition of agreeing
to transactions and maintaining a business relationship. Such clauses would
require clear and unequivocal representations and undertakings from clients
and suppliers as to their compliance with the international norms on illegal
arms and arms destined for illegal uses. Such clauses should be included in
all contracts concluded by the banks, not only those concluded with individuals
and legal persons known to be directly involved in arms-related activities.

Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 47

CONCLUSION

As highlighted in the introduction to this report, the aim of the AI’s research
was not to reach a conclusion on whether or not the Luxembourg financial centre
is involved in the financing of illegal arms or arms destined to an illegal
use, but to analyse whether an appropriate framework exists to prevent such
illegal financial activities from happening. This research shows that the Luxembourg
legislation on arms-related financial activity is incomplete and that the banking
sector’s policies and procedures in relation to financing of arms are not adequate
and effective. AI hopes that this report will alert the Luxembourg financial
centre, as well as the authorities and the general public, in Luxembourg and
abroad, about the gaps so identified by this report, and kickstart a marketplace
discussion on how to address the challenges it poses. This report makes certain
recommendations and invites financial institutions and relevant authorities
to come up with additional measures through a constructive dialogue, with a
view to ensuring enactment of the necessary laws and greater compliance with
existing laws in the context of the arms sector. Financial institutions, like
other business enterprises, have a responsibility to respect human rights.
They must not only refrain from financing illegal arms, but also require their
clients and suppliers to avoid involvement in illegal arms trafficking. While
their responsibility to respect human rights is independent from states, they
will benefit from a legislative and regulatory framework that clearly defines
the boundaries of their obligations. It is the role of governments to put in
place such a framework, in accordance with their international commitments
on arms and human rights. Controlling arms financing is not only about defending
human rights, it is also about actively fighting the growing scourge of terrorism.
Identifying arms-related transactions and their real beneficiaries is an indispensable
part of the fight against terrorist organizations. Investigating the end-use
of arms before agreeing to finance their production and sale ensures that they
will not be used by terrorist groups or used to commit atrocities against civilian
populations. KYC procedures that help to combat terrorism and human rights
violations can and must be conducted simultaneously. There are two remedies
against armed violence: knowledge and sense of responsibility. They are both
within reach but require determination and perseverance.

Amnesty International – January 2016

48 48 Banks, arms and human rights violations

APPENDIX 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO ARMS

International law contains general provisions on the use of arms, and limitations
or specific prohibitions on particular arms. These restrictions were initially
a response to a desire to limit the suffering caused by armed conflicts, as
shown by the preamble of the Declaration of Saint-Petersburg,72 the first formal
agreement to ban the use of certain arms during wars: “Considering: That the
progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible
the calamities of war; That the only legitimate object which states should
endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the
enemy; That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible
number of men; That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms
which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death
inevitable; That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary
to the laws of humanity”. The use of arms is subject to the provisions of international
law, in particular in the following domains of international law: international
humanitarian law, international human rights law, and international criminal
law. The use of arms is also subject to provisions of EU law.

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE USE OF ARMS

1. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW The United Nations Charter (UN Charter, or
Charter) gave human rights international legitimacy particularly because most
states ratified the Charter, which is the core constituent document of the
United Nations. It is a legally binding, multilateral international treaty
with 193 states parties. The Charter specifically mentions human rights in
its preamble and in a number of articles.73 Since the adoption of the UN Charter
international human rights law

72 Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles
Under 400 Grammes Weight. Saint Petersburg, 11 December 1868. 73 Human rights
are mentioned in the preamble as well as in Articles 13, 55, 62 and 68. Article
55 stipulates that “the United Nations shall promote […] universal respect
for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.” Amnesty International –
January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 49

has developed significantly and it is now composed of an international body
of law of treaties and decisions from international tribunals. Some elements
of it like for example the prohibition or slavery or the prohibition of torture
became norms of customary international law binding on all states. Most states
have also enacted domestic laws that protect what are traditionally thought
of as human rights. Human rights are defined as "inalienable rights of all
members of the human family" by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
of 1948,74 which set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be
universally protected. Thus, human rights are, in principle, applicable to
all persons, regardless of their nationality. Specifically, the Universal Declaration
calls on nations to respect the rights to life, liberty, and security (Article
3). It also states that no person should be enslaved, tortured, or deprived
of the right to a trial before a "national tribunal." Thus the Declaration
proclaims negative rights, whereby national governments may not engage in certain
activities against persons. Positive rights are also part of the Declaration.
It states that everyone should enjoy the right to an education and basic standards
of living. In doing so, it calls on nations to provide for all of their citizens
without discrimination. Human rights, in substance, are protections against
abuses by all states, and guarantees that people shall receive benefits from
states. The UDHR proclaims the ideals of nations aspiring to respect the human
rights of people of all nations. Legally, however, this document is not a treaty
and does not bind countries as it was adopted as a resolution of the UN General
Assembly. However, after the adoption of the UDHR, the UN has adopted a number
of legally binding treaties which contained and further developed the set of
human rights enshrined in the UDHR. Now treaties such as the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights are binding upon states parties and provide the
international legal framework to protect human rights. Under these treaties,
states agree to abide by certain restrictions on their conduct and to uphold
certain freedoms and basic needs for citizens.75 For example, the UN Convention
against Torture adopted in 1984, defines and bans torture and other cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. It requires torture to be made
a criminal offence under national laws and provides for universal jurisdiction
to prosecute torture irrespectively of the place of its commission and the
nationality of its perpetrator. The Convention also provides for remedies and
the right to reparation for torture victims. The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights of 1966 mirrors some provisions of the UDHR and
guarantees basic rights, including the right to life, and bans torture, inhuman
and degrading punishment and treatment, slavery, forced labour, arbitrary arrest
and detention. It also guarantees the freedom of movement and the right of
people to leave any country including their own, the right to a fair trial,
the freedom of conscience and religion, the freedom of opinion and expression,
and the freedom of association. The Human Rights Committee76 is the body of
independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights by its state parties. In particular, it interprets
and applies the treaty to cases in which a state exercises control over circumstances
affecting the right of a person outside of its borders, such as backing of

74 The Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in
Paris on 10 December 1948 as a common standard of achievements for all peoples
and all nations. 75 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/human_rights 76 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/C
CPRIndex.aspx
Amnesty International – January 2016

50 50 Banks, arms and human rights violations

military factions in another country who were carrying out human rights abuses,77
and failure to provide effective remedies to people abroad who have been victims
of activities of business enterprises domiciled in that state’s territory and/or
its jurisdiction.78 Other UN human rights treaty bodies, including the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Committee on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, have followed a similar approach, calling on states
to ensure companies within their jurisdiction do not cause or contribute to
human rights abuses abroad.79

Additionally, several other regional organizations, created by various treaties,
have come into existence. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example,
binds members of the Council of Europe to the human rights obligations set
forth in it. Similar human rights protection systems exist in Africa and in
the Americas. The European Convention specifically mentions the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and charges all signatories with upholding the basic principles
of the document. The European Convention on Human Rights has an international
tribunal (European Court of Human Rights) to which individuals who have exhausted
all domestic remedies can bring claims of violations of their human rights.80

2. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW International humanitarian law (or law of
war) is a field of international law regulating armed conflict between states,
and more recently, between states and informal groups and individuals. International
humanitarian law governs both the legality of justifications for war (jus ad
bellum, or when states can resort to war) and the legality of wartime conduct
(jus in bello, or how parties must behave themselves during war). It seeks
to limit the impact of wartime, especially on civilians and anyone not participating
in hostilities. It introduced rules that should be respected by everyone in
armed conflicts and wars, whatever the cause of the conflict or the causes
defended by any of the parties concerned.81 Core principles of international
humanitarian law can be found in major international treaties such as the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949,82 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977.83
In particular,

77 Human Rights Committee, 'Concluding Observations: Croatia' (1992) UN Doc
CCPR/C/79/Add.15, para. 7; Human Rights Committee, 'Concluding Observations:
Yugoslavia' (1992) UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.16, para. 5, 8. 78 Human Rights Committee,
'Concluding Observations on Germany' (2012) UN Doc CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6, para. 16.
79 See, inter alia, CERD Committee: 'Concluding Observations: United States
of America' (2008) UN Doc CERD/C/USA/CO/6 para. 30; CEDAW Committee: 'General
Recommendation 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2'
(2010) UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28: ‘States parties are responsible for all their
actions affecting human rights, regardless of whether the affected persons
are in their territory’, para. 12; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, Concluding Observations on Germany, UN Doc. E/C.12/DEU/CO/5 (20 May
2011), para. 10: “The Committee expresses concern that the State party’s policy-making
process in, as well as its support to, investments by German companies abroad
does not give due consideration to human rights.” See also CESCR General Comment
No. 14,: “To comply with their international obligations in relation to article
12, States parties have to respect the enjoyment of the right to health in
other countries, and to prevent third parties from violating the right in other
countries, ...” CESCR, 'General Comment 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable
Standard of Health' (2000) UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4, para. 39. 80 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_domestics
_remedies_ENG.pdf
81 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/International_humanitarian_law 82 There
are 4 Conventions: Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 51

they seek to protect people who are not participating in hostilities (civilians,
health and religious personnel and members of humanitarian organizations),
as well as anyone not taking part in the fighting (the wounded, the ill, the
shipwrecked and prisoners of war). These instruments define “serious breaches”
of IHL and provide for the universal jurisdiction of national courts for such
acts. Serious breaches of these treaties and other serious violations of IHL
constitute war crimes. The list of war crimes provided in Article 8 of the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)85 reflected customary
international law at the time of its adoption, although a number of important
war crimes are not included.86

As regards arms specifically, IHL prohibits two types of weapons: - those which
are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering - and
those which are by nature indiscriminate.87 On these grounds, international
humanitarian law prohibits, inter alia, the use of biological and chemical
weapons, expanding and exploding bullets.88 The use of such prohibited weapons
constitutes a war crime.89 Specific treaties have been agreed banning anti-personnel
landmines and cluster munitions.90 The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions
on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively
Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) of 10 October 1980, signed
on 10 April 1981 and approved by the Luxembourg Law of 3 April 199691 restricts
or prohibits the use of certain conventional arms on the principle that they
may strike combatants and civilians indiscriminately, and cause superfluous
injury or unnecessary suffering to combatants. The CCW has several protocols.
It was amended on 21

I. Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick
in Armed Forces in the Field; II. Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition
of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea; III.
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; IV. Convention relative
to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. 83 Protocol I covers
the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Protocol II covers
the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. 85 The Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, signed on 17 July 1998, entered
into force on 1 July 2002 and was approved by the Luxembourg law of 14 August
2000 (Mém. A – 84 of 25.08.2000, p. 1968) and the law of 26 December 2012 approving
amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by resolution
RC/Res.5 and resolution RC/Res.6 adopted at the Review Conference of the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 10-11 June 2010 (Mém.
A – 284 of 31.12.2012, p. 4448). Two laws were adopted to make the Statute
national law: the law of 27 February 2012 on the provisions of the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court, approved by the law of 14 August 2000
approving the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July
1998 (Mém. A – 41 of 7.03.2012, p. 410) and the law of 27 February 2012 regulating
cooperation with the International Criminal Court (Mém. A – 41 of 7.03.2012,
p. 414). 86 For a more complete list of war crimes see the authoritative study
by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian
Law, Volume I: Rules; Rule 156. 87 ICRC, Customary IHL Study, Rules 20 and
71. 88 ICRC, Customary IHL, Rules 73,74,77, and 78 89 ICRC Customary IHL, Rule
156, p580. 90 Cluster munition are prohibited by the Convention on Cluster
Munitions (Op.cit. Part II, section A.2) and anti-personnel landmines are prohibited
by the Mine Ban Treaty (see below in this section). 91 Mém. A – 23 of 16.04.1996,
p.865. Amnesty International – January 2016

52 52 Banks, arms and human rights violations

December 2001 and approved by the Luxembourg Law of 8 April 2005.92 The CCW
Protocols are as follows: 93 - Protocol I of 10 October 1980, approved by the
Law of 3 April 1996, prohibits arms that cause Injury by Fragments Which Are
Not Detectable by X ray in the Human Body; - Protocol II on Prohibitions or
Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices of 10 October
1980, as amended on 3 May 1996, and approved by the Luxembourg Law of 29 April
1999,94 prohibits, in all circumstances, the use of such arms against the civilian
population in general or against individual civilians, or their indiscriminate
use; - Protocol III of 10 October 1980, approved by the Law of 3 April 1996,95
restricts the use of incendiary weapons designed to set fire to objects or
cause severe burns to persons (for example, white phosphorus or napalm, and
flame throwers); - Protocol IV of 13 October 1995, prohibits Blinding Laser
Weapons, approved by the Luxembourg Law of 29 April 1999;96 - Protocol V of
28 November 2003 on Explosive Remnants of War, approved by the Luxembourg Law
of 8 April 2005.97

A fundamental rule of international humanitarian law is that parties to any
conflict must at all times “distinguish between civilians and combatants”,
especially in that “attacks may only be directed against combatants” and “must
not be directed against civilians.”98 A similar rule requires parties to distinguish
between “civilian objects” and “military objectives.” These rules are part
of the fundamental principle of distinction. For the purposes of distinction,
anyone who is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict is
a civilian, and the civilian population comprises all persons who are not combatants.99
Civilians are protected against attack unless and for such time as they take
a direct part in hostilities.100

Civilian objects are all objects (that is, buildings, structures, places, and
other physical property or environments) which are not “military objectives,”
and military objectives are “limited to those objects which by their nature,
location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action
and whose partial or total destruction, capture or neutralisation, in the circumstances
ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”101 Civilian objects
are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they

92 Mém. A – 57 of 29.04.2005, p. 890. 93 Mém. A – 23 of 16.04.1996, p.865.
94 Mém. A – 50 of 6.05.1999, p. 1175. 95 Mém. A – 23 of 16.04.1996, p.865.
96 Mém. A – 50 of 6.05.1999, p. 1175. 97 Mém. A – 57 of 29.04.2005, p. 890.
98 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 1. See also Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Article 48, and Protocol Additional
to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection
of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Article 12(2).
99 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 5; see also Protocol I, Article 50. 100 ICRC
Customary IHL Study, Rule 6; see also Protocol I, Article 51(3); Protocol II,
Article 13(3). 101 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rules 8 and 9; Protocol I, Article
52. Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 53

become military objectives because all of the criteria for a military objective
just described become temporarily fulfilled.102 In cases of doubt whether an
object that is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of
worship, a house or other dwelling, or a school, is being used for military
purposes, it is to be presumed not to be so used.103

Intentionally directing attacks against civilians or against civilian objects
is a war crime.104 The principle of distinction also includes a specific rule
that “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread
terror among the civilian population are prohibited.”105

The corollary of the rule of distinction is that “indiscriminate attacks are
prohibited.”106 Indiscriminate attacks are those that are of a nature to strike
military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction,
either because the attack is not directed at a specific military objective,
or because it employs a method or means of combat that cannot be directed at
a specific military objective or has effects that cannot be limited as required
by international humanitarian law.107 International humanitarian law also prohibits
disproportionate attacks, which are those “which may be expected to cause incidental
loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or
a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete
and direct military advantage anticipated.”108 Intentionally launching an indiscriminate
attack resulting in death or injury to civilians, or a disproportionate attack
(that is, knowing that the attack will cause excessive incidental civilian
loss, injury or damage) constitutes a war crime.109

In addition to benefiting from the protection accorded to civilians and civilian
objects, certain persons and objects are afforded special protection under
international humanitarian law. Medical personnel and medical transports must
be respected and protected in all circumstances.110 Humanitarian relief personnel
and humanitarian relief objects must be respected and protected.111 And “special
care must be taken in military operations to avoid damage to buildings dedicated
to religion, art, science, education or charitable purposes and historic monuments
unless they are military objectives.”112

The protection of the civilian population and civilian objects is further underpinned
by the requirement that all parties to a conflict take precautions in attack.
In the conduct of military operations, then, “constant care must be taken to
spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects”; “all feasible
precautions” must be taken to avoid and minimize incidental loss of civilian
life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.113 The parties must
choose means and methods of warfare with a view to avoiding, and in any event
to

102 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 10. 103 Protocol I article 52(3). See also
ICRC Customary IHL Study, pp. 34-36. 104 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 156,
pp. 591,593,595-598. See also Rome Statute of the ICC, articles 8(2)(b)(i)
and (ii) and 8(2)(e)(i)(ii)(iv) and (xii). See also discussion in ICRC Customary
IHL Study, p. 27. 105 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 2; see also Protocol I,
Article 51(2) and Protocol II, Article 12(2). 106 ICRC Customary IHL Study,
Rule 11; Protocol I, Article 51(4). 107 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 12;
Protocol I, Article 51(4)(a). 108 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 14; Protocol
I, Articles 51(5)(b) and 57. 109 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 156, pp. 599-601.
110 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rules 26 and 29. 111 ICRC Customary IHL Study,
Rules 31 and 32. 112 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 38. 113 ICRC Customary
IHL Study, Rule 15. See also Protocol II, Article 13(1). Amnesty International
– January 2016

54 54 Banks, arms and human rights violations

minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage
to civilian objects.114 Everything feasible must be done to verify that targets
are military objectives, to assess the proportionality of attacks, and to halt
attacks if it becomes apparent they are wrongly directed or disproportionate.115
Where circumstances permit, parties must give effective advance warning of
attacks which may affect the civilian population.116

Parties must choose appropriate means and methods of attack when military targets
are located within residential areas. This requirement rules out the use of
certain types of weapons and tactics. The use of means (such as using imprecise
explosive weapons on targets located in densely populated civilian areas) of
combat that cannot be directed at a specific military objective may result
in indiscriminate attacks and is prohibited. Choosing methods of attack (e.g.
attacking objectives at times when many civilians are most likely to be present)
that do not minimize the risk to civilians also violates international humanitarian
law. Warring parties have obligations to take precautions to protect civilians
and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks by
the adversary. As with precautions in attack, these rules are particularly
important when fighting is taking place in areas with large numbers of civilians.
Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military
objectives within or near densely populated areas.117 However, Article 50(3)
of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol
I), states: “The presence within the civilian population of individuals who
do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population
of its civilian character.” Applicable IHL also provides fundamental guarantees
for civilians as well as fighters or combatants who are captured, injured or
otherwise rendered unable to fight (hors de combat). Between them, Common Article
3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law
include the following rules: murder is prohibited; humane treatment is required;
discrimination in application of the protections of IHL is prohibited; torture,
cruel or inhuman treatment and outrages on personal dignity (particularly humiliating
and degrading treatment) are prohibited, as are enforced disappearances, the
taking of hostages, and arbitrary detention. No one may be convicted or sentenced
except pursuant to a fair trial affording all essential judicial guarantees.
Collective punishments are also prohibited.118 Depending on the particular
rule in question, many or all acts that violate these rules will also constitute
war crimes.119

3. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW International criminal law criminalizes acts
of individuals and groups, which amount to crimes under international law such
as for example genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture or enforced
disappearances committed on the territory under state jurisdiction

114 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 17. 115 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rules
16-19. 116 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 20. 117 ICRC Customary IHL Study,
Rule 23; see also Protocol I, Article 58(b). 118 ICRC Customary IHL Study,
Rules 87-105. 119 ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 156, pp. 590-603. Amnesty
International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 55

or by their citizens. Crimes under international law are also internationally
wrongful acts, which means that states may also incur responsibility for aiding
and assisting those acts if they provide means (including arms and money) to
facilitate them with intent.120 There are 5 features characterising a crime
under international law:121

1) The crime violates or threatens fundamental values or interests protected
by international law and is of concern to the international community as a
whole; 2) The criminal norm emanates from an international treaty or from customary
international law, without requiring intermediate provision of domestic law;
3) The criminal norm has direct binding force on individuals and therefore
provides for direct individual criminal responsibility; 4) The crime may be
prosecuted before international or domestic criminal courts in accordance with
the principle of universal jurisdiction;122 5) A treaty provision or a rule
of customary international law establishing liability for an act as an international
crime binds all (or a great majority of) states and individuals.

States have the primary responsibility for either prosecuting before their
national courts or extraditing to international or foreign courts and tribunals
individuals suspected of responsibility for crimes under international law.
In addition, all states are permitted and, sometimes, obliged to exercise universal
jurisdiction with regard to those crimes.123 International criminal law is
also practiced by, and prosecuted within, international criminal tribunals,
such as the International Criminal Court124. International law provides the
following definitions:

- Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
as such: killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm
to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,
imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group.125

120 Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article
16. 121 http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Crimes/Introduction 122
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgement
of 5 February 1970, International Court of Justice, para 34-34: “In particular,
an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State
towards the international community as a whole, and those arising vis- à-vis
another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature the
former are the concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights
involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection;
they are obligations erga omnes. Such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary
international law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide,
as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human
person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination.” 123 See,
for example, Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded
and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, arts.49 and
50 124 Source : https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law 125 See the
Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide of December
9, 1948, and the Rome Statute of the ICC. Amnesty International – January 2016

56 56 Banks, arms and human rights violations

- Crimes against humanity – conduct amounts to crimes against humanity if it
encompasses specific acts such as murder, extermination (notably, conditions
of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the population),
enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment or
other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of international
law, torture, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy
(with the intent of affecting the composition of the population), enforced
sterilization, persecution, enforced disappearance of persons, persecutions
on political, racial or religious grounds, other inhumane acts intentionally
causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical
health, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed
against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. This conduct
usually involves multiple commission of those acts against any civilian population,
pursuant to or in furtherance of a state or organizational policy to commit
such attack.126

- War crimes are serious violations of the IHL, i.e. violations of the laws
or customs of war. Such violations include, but are not limited to, wilful
killing; torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; wilfully
causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction
and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried
out unlawfully and wantonly; compelling a prisoner of war or other protected
person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; wilfully depriving a prisoner
of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; unlawful
deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; taking of hostages or other
serious violations of the laws and customs or war. The Luxembourg Criminal
Code incorporated provisions of the ICC Statute in its Title I bis “About serious
violations of international humanitarian law” including in particular definitions
of genocide, crime against humanity and war crimes.127

B. LEGAL STANDARDS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF ARMS

Since the end of the Second World War and the invention of the nuclear bomb,
weapons of mass destruction are distinguished from conventional weapons.

1. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) According to the UN Office for Disarmament
Affairs, weapons of mass destruction are weapons designed to kill a large number
of people, and are directed at both civilians and the military. These weapons
are not in general used against a very precise objective, but rather against
an extensive area with over a 1km radius, with devastating effects on people,

126 See in particular the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and
the Rome Statute of the ICC. 127 Code Pénal – Titre I bis “Des violations graves
du droit international humanitaire.” Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 57

infrastructure and the environment.128 Weapons of mass destruction include:
- Nuclear weapons: although they are not specifically banned by international
law, they are strictly regulated by a number of international treaties to which
Luxembourg is party.129 In an Advisory Opinion issued in 1996, the International
Court of Justice stated that their use is “generally contrary to the rules
of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles
and rules of humanitarian law,” while stating that it could not reach a definitive

128 http://www.un.org/fr/disarmament/wmd/index.shtml 129 Luxembourg is party
to the following treaties that deal with nuclear weapons: - Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) of 1 July 1968, signed on 14 August 1968 in Washington,
Moscow and London, adopted by the law of 20 December 1974 (Mém. A - 91 of 27
December 1974, p. 2114). The NPT requires each nuclear- weapon state party
to undertake not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or
other nuclear explosive devices and not to assist any non-nuclear-weapon state
to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices, or control them (art.I).
Non-nuclear-weapon states must undertake not to receive transfers of nuclear
weapons and devices or control them and not to manufacture or acquire such
weapons or devices and not to seek or accept assistance (art.II). However,
the NPT recognizes the right of all states to develop, research, produce and
use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (art.IV). The agreement between the
Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany,
Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of
the Netherlands, the European Atomic Energy Community and the International
Atomic Energy Agency, in implementation of article III of the NPT, in Brussels,
5 April 1973 and adopted by the law of 20 December 1974 (Mém. A - 91 of 27.12.1974,
p. 2114) , deals with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s mission of guaranteeing
that special fissionable materials produced or used in the nuclear installations
of non-nuclear-weapon states are only used for peaceful purposes. Additional
Protocol on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to Detect Clandestine
Nuclear Activities, Vienna, 22 September 1998 and adopted by the law of 1 August
2001 (Mém. A - 105 of 23.08.2001 p. 2136). - Treaty on the Prohibition of the
Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the
Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof of 11 February 1971, London,
Moscow and Washington and adopted by the law of 11 August 1982 (Mém. A - 74
of 01.09.1982, p. 1546). Additional Protocol on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons to Detect Clandestine Nuclear Activities, Vienna, 22 September 1998
adopted by the law of 1 August 2001. - Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
of 10 September 1996, New York, signed on 24 September 1996 and adopted by
the law of 11 March 1999 (Mém. A – 27 of 19.03.1999, p. 669). - Treaty Banning
Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and under Water of 5
August 1964, Moscow, signed on 13 August 1963 and adopted by the law of 6 January
1965 (Mémorial A - 1 of 13.01.1965 p. 10). - Convention on the Physical Protection
of Nuclear Material of 3 March 1980, New York and Vienna, adopted by the law
of 11 April 1985 (Mém. 21 du 29.04.1985 p. 351) amended by the law of 12 August
2003 on 1) suppression of terrorism and the financing of terrorism 2) adoption
of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism,
opened for signature in New York on 10 January 2000 (Mém. A – 137 of 15.09.2003,
p. 2850), the law of 27 October 2010 strengthening the legal framework regulating
the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism (Mém. A -
193 of 03.11.2010, p. 3172), the law of 28 July 2011 adopting the Amendment
to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted in
Vienna (Mém. 170 of 09.08.2011, p. 2918), the law of 26 December 2012 adopting
the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (Mém. A- 290
of 31.12.2012). Amnesty International – January 2016

58 58 Banks, arms and human rights violations

conclusion as to the legality of the use of nuclear weapons by a state “in
an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which its very survival would be
at stake.”130

- Chemical weapons, banned by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction
of 3 September 1992, signed on 13 January 1993, entered into force in April
1997. The convention was adopted by the Luxembourg law of 10 April 1997131.
- Biological and Bacteriological arms, banned by the Geneva Protocol for the
Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare of 17 June 1925, approved by the Luxembourg
law of 15 July 1936,132 and by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons
and on Their Destruction of 10 April 1972, approved by the Luxembourg law of
28 November 1975.133

In addition, Luxembourg is obliged to implement UN Security Council Resolution
1540 of 28 April 2004 on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
which requires states (i) to refrain from providing any form of support to
non-state actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport,
transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of
delivery and (ii) to approve and enforce laws preventing the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction.134

130 I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1996, p.266. 131 Mém. A - 23 of 16.04.1997 p. 881. This Act
led to the adoption of the ministerial regulation of 25 June 1997 amending
the list annexed to the Grand Ducal Regulation of 31 October 1995 on the import,
export and transit of arms, munitions and equipment intended specifically for
military use and of related technology (Mém. A - 51 of 22.07.1997). The Convention
on Chemical Weapons completely banned chemical weapons: toxic chemicals and
their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this
Convention; munitions and devices specifically designed to cause death or other
harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals which would be released
as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices; any equipment
specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of
these munitions and devices. For more information, see: http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/
132 Mém. A – 63 of 14.08.1936 p. 1015. 133 Mém. A – 82 of 11.12.1975 p. 1775.
The Convention also banned microbial or other biological agents, or toxins,
whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that
have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;
weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins
for hostile purposes or in armed conflict. The Convention also contains provisions
on disarmament. Luxembourg also signed the Convention on the Prohibition of
the Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,
adopted in New York, 10 December 1976. 134 In addition, Resolution 1887 of
24 September 2009 invites states to strengthen their controls over exports
of nuclear equipment and to condition their export on the recipient state’s
compliance with the agreements signed or to be signed with the IAEA. It also
calls on member states to strengthen their national legislation, by adopting
stricter national controls for the export of sensitive goods and technologies
of the nuclear fuel cycle; improving their capabilities to detect, deter, and
disrupt illicit trafficking in nuclear materials throughout their territories;
by taking all appropriate national measures in accordance with their national
authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, to prevent
proliferation of financing and shipments, to strengthen export controls, to
secure sensitive materials, and to control access to intangible transfers of
technology. Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 59

Climatic, seismic and thermobaric weapons are also considered to be WMDs. 2.
CONVENTIONAL ARMS The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs states that conventional
arms are not weapons of mass destruction. They are generally devices designed
to kill, wound or cause damage and their means of delivery. Their effects are
generally, but not only, due to high explosives, weapons powered by kinetic
energy or incendiary devices.135

Conventional arms are therefore, by default, all arms that are not WMD. It
is therefore difficult to define them exactly. Conventional arms are a crucial
issue for security as well as for human rights. It is estimated that more than
500,000 civilians are killed by the misuse of conventional arms every year,
which is equivalent to one person every minute.136

a) Definition of conventional arms The UN Register of Conventional Arms137
distinguishes several categories of major conventional arms: large-calibre
artillery systems, combat aircraft, battle tanks, attack helicopters, armoured
combat vehicles, warships, missiles, missile launchers and SALW. SALWs include
the following categories of arms: - Small arms: revolvers and self-loading
pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, light machine
guns; - Light weapons: heavy machine guns, hand-held underbarrel and mounted
grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft cannons, portable anti-tank guns,
recoilless rifles, portable anti-tank missile launchers and rocket systems,
portable anti-aircraft missile launchers, mortars of less than 100 mm; - munitions
and explosives: anti-personnel and anti-tank grenades, landmines and explosives,
SALW ammunition (cartridges for small arms, shells and missiles for light weapons,
mobile containers with missiles or shells for single action anti- aircraft
and anti-tank systems). Since the 1990s, there has been uncontrolled distribution
of SALWs. In 2007, the Small Arms Survey estimated that 875 million firearms
were in circulation in the world, which accounts for only a part of SALWs.138
SALWs are now one of the major components of international trafficking in arms.
They are lethal arms: it is estimated that, between 1990 and 2000, they caused
the death of 4 million people, 90% of them civilians and 80% of them women
and children.139 The proliferation of SALWs is in part due to the

135 http://www.un.org/fr/disarmament/wmd/index.shtml 136 Shattered Lives: the
case for tough international arms control. Amnesty International and Oxfam,
2003, p24. 137 The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was established
on 1 January 1992, in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 46/36 of
6 December 1991, entitled General and Complete Disarmament, doc. UN A/RES/46/36.
138 Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the city, Geneva, Cambridge University
Press. Cited in Amnesty International, Contrôler les armes, Editions Autrement.
139 Amnesty International, Contrôler les armes, op. cit. Amnesty International
– January 2016

60 60 Banks, arms and human rights violations

fact that they are not expensive and easy to acquire. b) Legal framework for
conventional arms Although only certain conventional arms are strictly prohibited,
the trade in conventional arms as a whole, whether prohibited or not, is regulated
by international law. Prohibition of certain conventional arms The following
arms are strictly prohibited: - Anti-personnel landmines, prohibited by the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer
of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (also known as the Mine Ban
Treaty) of 18 September 1997, signed in Ottawa on 4 December 1997 and approved
by the Luxembourg law of 29 April 1999;140

- Cluster munitions, prohibited by the Convention on Cluster Munitions of 30
May 2008, signed in Oslo on 3 December 2008 and approved by the Luxembourg
law of 4 June 2009142. The law of 4 June 2009 prohibited “all physical and
legal persons from knowingly financing cluster munitions or explosive submunitions.”143

- Projectiles Under 400 Grammes, which are explosive or charged with fulminating
or inflammable substances, prohibited by the Declaration of Saint Petersburg.
- Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body, such as bullets
with a hard envelope, prohibited by Declaration IV of The Hague, of 29 July
1899. There are other conventional arms which are not prohibited but the use
of which is strictly restricted. Please see section A.2 “International humanitarian
law.” Regulation of international trade in conventional arms International
law International law regulates international transfers of conventional arms
in order to limit their proliferation and uncontrolled use. - The Wassenaar
Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and
Technologies. Adopted on 12 May 1996, it introduced a

140 Mém. A – 50 of 6.05.1999, p. 1189. However, the Convention authorizes the
retention or transfer of a number (minimum number absolutely necessary) of
anti-personnel mines for the development of and training in mine detection,
mine clearance, or mine destruction. The transfer of anti-personnel mines for
the purpose of destruction is also permitted. 142 Mém. A – 147 of 22 June 2009,
p. 2038. 143 Article 3 of the Act. Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 61

system to control exports of conventional arms and dual use goods and technologies,
common to the 41 states parties (including Luxembourg). - The Arms Trade Treaty
(ATT). Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 April 2013, it established
international standards on the import, export and transfer of conventional
arms, ammunition, and related parts and components, in order to eliminate the
illicit trade in these arms and prevent unauthorized end-use or diversion to
unauthorized end-users (human rights violations, acts of terrorism…). The ATT
entered into force after obtaining 50 ratifications. The ATT was signed by
Luxembourg on 3 June 2013 and approved by the law of 23 May 2014.144 As the
2013 Annual Report of Luxembourg’s foreign ministry emphasized, “Luxembourg
was among the first members states of the United Nations to sign the Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT) at the United Nations headquarters in New York. Luxembourg welcomes
the creation of a legally binding universal instrument setting the highest
possible standards on the export, import and transfer of conventional arms.”145

The aim of the ATT is ”to establish the highest possible common international
standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade
in conventional arms” and “to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional
arms and prevent their diversion” for the purpose of “reducing human suffering.”146

The production, export, import and transfer of conventional arms are not prohibited
in principle by the ATT. States are authorized to acquire conventional arms147
for their own legitimate defence and peacekeeping operations. The ATT lists
a series of illegal and prohibited uses of arms. One of the most important
provisions of the ATT is its Article 6 (3) which prohibits transfer of arms
if the exporting state has knowledge that the arms would be used in the commission
of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. States are also prohibited
from transferring arms to places where the UN Security Council has imposed
an arms embargo and when the transfer should be prohibited under other international
agreement on fight against illicit arms trafficking. If the transfer of arms
is not prohibited under Article 6 then, based on Article 7, states parties
are required to conduct an objective assessment to determine whether the arms
would not be used to, among other things, commit or facilitate serious violations
of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. If, after
conducting such assessment, it is concluded that there exists an overriding
risk of such negative consequences the exporting state shall not authorize
the export. States which have ratified or acceded to the ATT, including Luxembourg,
have voluntarily

144 Law of 23 May 2014 approving the Arms Trade Treaty, New York, 2 April 2013,
signed by Luxembourg on 3 June 2013 in New York, Mém. A – 89 of 27.05.2014,
p. 1406. As of 8 January 2016, 130 had signed the treaty, 79 of which were
states parties. A list of these countries can be found on https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREA
TY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-8&chapter=26&lang=en
145 Annual Report 2013, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, op. cit., p.52. 146 Article
1 of the Arms Trade Treaty. 147 List given in article 2: battle tanks; armoured
combat vehicles; large-calibre artillery systems; combat aircraft; attack helicopters;
warships; missiles and missile launchers; small arms and light weapons. Article
3 concerns, in addition, the export of munitions fired, launched or delivered
by the conventional arms covered under article 2 (1). Article 4 covers the
export of parts and components, where the export is in a form that provides
the capability to assemble the conventional arms covered under article 2 (1).
Amnesty International – January 2016

62 62 Banks, arms and human rights violations

taken upon themselves specific obligations deriving from it. In particular
they have recognized, as the object and the purpose of the treaty their obligations
to “establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating
or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms”
and to “prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent
their diversion.” Based on the ATT Luxembourg, as well as other states parties,
is obliged to ensure that trade in arms covered by the treaty is effectively
regulated. This means controlling and regulating “export, import, transit,
trans-shipment and brokering” of arms by individuals and other legal entities
(including corporations) under their jurisdiction.148 In addition, there are
also multilateral arms embargoes that have been implemented by an international
organisation, such as the EU or UN, or by a group of nations as a sanction
“to coerce states and non-governmental actors to improve their behaviour in
the interests of international peace and security.”149

Luxembourg law At the national level, the law amended on 15 March 1983 on arms
and munitions150 made a distinction between two categories of arms. It is forbidden
to import, manufacture, transform, repair, acquire, purchase, hold, store,
transport, carry, transfer, sell, export or trade in Category I arms and munitions,151
although some activities are authorized in particular circumstances (art. 4).
In the case of Category II arms and munitions,152 these activities require
justice ministry authorization. The law is implemented by: - the amended Grand
Ducal Regulation of 13 April 1983 implementing the law of 15 March 1983 on
arms and munitions;153

148 Arms Trade Treaty, Article 2(2). 149 http://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes
150 Mém. A – 254 of 15.12.2011, p. 4268. 151 For prohibited arms, the law covers
the following arms and munitions: arms and other devices designed to harm people
using lachrymatory, toxic, asphyxiating, inhibitive or similar substances,
as well as their munitions, with the exception of guns and revolvers intended
to fire cartridges containing inhibitive substances and the munitions used
by these arms; arms and other devices designed to harm people and goods using
fire or explosions, and their munitions, with the exception of arms and devices
listed in Category II below; weapons with a blade, which have more than one
cutting edge, bayonets, swords, double-edged swords, sabres, spears, stilettos
and throwing knives; flick knives, with the exception of hunting knives; unsheathed
knives with a blade under 7 cm in length or with a length between 7 cm and
9 cm, on condition, in the latter case, that the width is greater than 14 mm;
knuckle- dusters, clubs, sword and sabre sticks, firearms, unmarked elementary
packages of munitions; all other firearms not listed in Category II, and their
munitions and accessories. 152 This category includes: kinetic energy weapons
(excluding firearms) with a kinetic energy at the mouth of the barrel greater
than 7.5 joules; guns and revolvers used to fire cartridges containing inhibitive
substances; guns and firearms for defence and sport; firearms designed for
alarm, signalling, lifesaving and animal slaughtering; hunting and sport rifles
and guns; military rifles and guns operating or performing in a way that is
identical to hunting and sport arms, or that have been modified to become hunting
and sport arms; flick knifes specially used for hunting; truncheons; the munitions
used with the arms listed above; silencers; guns used to slaughter animals,
known as “kill-cattle”; crossbows with an arrow propulsion force greater than
10 kg as well as all other devices designed to throw solid projectiles (slings,
catapults) by mechanical force, with the exception of bows used for sport.
153 Mém. A – 254 of 15.12.2011, p. 4267. Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 63

- the Grand Ducal Regulation of 7 June 1993 authorizing 1. Extension of the
use of the database containing the names of the owners, carriers, holders and
sellers of prohibited arms; 2. Use of the identity numbers of physical and
legal persons;154 - the Grand Ducal Regulation of 24 November 2005 on the placing
on the market and control of explosives for civil uses,155 amended by the Grand
Ducal Regulation of 31 March 2006 complementing the Grand Ducal Regulation
of 24 November 2005 on the placing on the market and control of explosives
for civil uses .156

The amended Grand Ducal Regulation of 31 October 1995 on the import, export
and transit of arms, munitions and equipment intended specifically for military
use and related technology157 prohibits these activities in the case of arms,
munitions and equipment intended specifically for military use in Category
I. An export and transit licence must be obtained for arms, munitions and equipment
intended specifically for military use in Category II. A licence must also
be obtained for arms, munitions and equipment intended specifically for military
use in Category II section 2. Licences are granted by the Licence Office.158
Without removing the existing licensing regime, the bill on the control of
the export, transfer, transit and import of defence-related products and dual
use products,159 registered on24 July 2014,160 seeks to bring together all
existing legislation into a single law. The bill is aimed at defence-related
products (technologies and military equipment), goods that may be used to inflict
capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments
or treatment,161 and dual use products.162 The law deals with operations involving
the export, import, transfer and transit of these goods as well as brokering,
technical assistance and technology transfers, as well as restrictive measures
on these goods imposed by embargoes. A Grand-Ducal Regulation on the brokering
of defence-related products and dual use goods was also issued on 5 August
2015 and provides for an authorisation regime for brokering activities in relation
with defence-related products. c) Other types of military devices Security
equipment There is no internationally recognized and exhaustive list of security
equipment. However, security equipment includes equipment held by most of the
world’s security forces: handcuffs, shackles, chains, batons, cudgels, incapacitating
chemical products (tear gas),

154 Mém. A - 49 of 12.07.1993, p. 988. 155 Mém. A – 187 of 30.11.2005, p. 2992.
156 Mém. A – 62 of 10.04.2006, p. 1263. 157 Mém. A – 94 of 28.11.1995, p. 2214.
158 The list appended to the Grand Ducal Regulation was amended by the ministerial
regulation of 7 April 1997 (Mém. A – 30 of 29.04.1997, p. 1117); the ministerial
regulation of 25 June 1997 (Mém. A – 51 of 22.07.1997, p. 1648); the ministerial
regulation of 3 March 1998 (Mém. A - 253 of 14.12.2011, p. 259); the ministerial
regulation of 7 February 2012 (Mém. A - 29 of 17.02.2012, p. 354). 159 Bill
n° 6708 on the control of the export, transfer, transit and import of goods
of a strictly civil nature, defence-related products and dual use goods; brokering
and technical assistance; intangible transfers of technology; implementation
of United Nations Security Council resolutions and European Union positions
including restrictive measures on commercial matters towards certain states,
political regimes, persons, entities and groups. 160 At the time of writing
this report, the Bill had received favourable opinions from the Chamber of
Civil Servants and Government Employees (Chambre des Fonctionnaires et Employés
publics) (13.10.2014) and the Chamber of Employees (Chambre des Salariés) (30.10.2014),
161 The bill prohibits the export and import of leg-irons, gang-chains and
portable electric shock devices. 162 They include all goods which can be used
for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Amnesty International –
January 2016

64 64 Banks, arms and human rights violations

electric shock equipment (such as Taser guns).163

Components for military, police and security systems A decreasing number of
sites produce complete arms systems in one country. Systems are now assembled
from components and equipment (spare parts, electronic systems…). Therefore,
in addition to the export of “complete” arms, it is indispensable to control
transfers of their components.164

“Dual use” goods and technologies Goods and technologies are labelled “dual
use” when they can be used for civilian as well as military purposes. In general,
this includes equipment supplied for civilian use that is then used to develop
military arms or materials. For example, digital signal processors used in
DVD readers are also used in guiding devices; and the acquisition of missile
targeting systems for combat aircraft. This may also include software used
for conducting surveillance, including online, some of which may be intrusion
software. The Wassenaar Arrangement introduced a system for controlling the
export of dual-use goods and technologies. Luxembourg is also subject to Council
Regulation EC n°428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the
control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items.165 The
regulation is aimed at “items, including software and technologies, which can
be used for both civil and military purposes, and shall include all goods which
can be used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture
of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” It is implemented in
Luxembourg by the Grand Ducal Regulation of 2 September 2011 regulating the
export and transit of dual-use goods and technologies166 and the Grand-Ducal
Regulation on the brokering of defence-related products and dual use goods
issued on 5 August 2015.167

163 https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act30/1305/2015/en 164 Cf. article
4 of the ATT. 165 JOUE n° L 134 of 29.5.2009, p. 1. The regulations were amended
by European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) n° 1232/2011 of 16 November
2011 (JOUE n° L 326 of 8.12.2011, p. 26) and European Parliament and Council
Regulation (EU) No 388/2012 of 19 April 2012 (JOUE n° L129 of 16 May 2012,
p. 12) and European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) n° 599/2014 of 16
April 2014 (JOUE n° L 173 of 12.06.2014, p. 79). 166 Mém. A – 195 of 12.09.2011,
p. 3552. 167 Op.cit. p.3798. Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 65

APPENDIX 2 – INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE BANKS

This appendix includes information provided by the banks that agreed to participate
in the AI study. Only BCEE, BNP and Raiffeisen met AI representatives to answer
our questions and also provided information through emails and letters. ING
provided information through emails and letters. KBL provided some basic information
by courier but did not respond to further requests. BdL first indicated that
it wished to take part in the study but did not follow up on invitations to
meet, nor on requests for information. BIL expressly refused to meet AI and
to take part in the study. This section of the report is therefore based only
on statements made by the banks in the course of their contact with AI, as
well as in some of their public documents. AI is not in a position to confirm
whether or not and to what extent these statements and the information contained
in the public documents were accurate.

The table below presents, for each bank which answered to AI, the information
provided with respect to: - The existence (or not) of policies on defence and
arms; - internal procedures to govern the implementation of the policies on
defence and arms ; - training of employees about the policies on defence and
arms; - whether the goals of policies on defence and arms are taken into account
into the performance evaluation of employees; - the use of external experts
to obtain the information necessary for their financing and investment procedures
for the defence and arms sector. BNP Paribas Policies on defence BNP has a
public written policy on defence and armaments, available and arms on the group’s
website.168 This is the group’s policy and is therefore not specific to the
bank in Luxembourg. It is one of the BNP group’s seven sector-level policies
that form part of the group’s CSR policy. Published in December 2010, the group’s
policy excludes investments in and financing of certain types of arms (called
“controversial arms”) and arms destined to certain geographical zones. The
comments below are based on the bank’s policy document entitled Sector Policy
– Defence169 and Registration

168 http://www.bnpparibas.com/sites/default/files/ckeditor-upload/files/PDF/RSE%20-
%20Politique%20Sectorielle%20Defense%20BNPP%20- %20publi%C3%A9%20internet%20V2%20corr%202014.pdf
169 English version available online in May 2015 at Amnesty International –
January 2016

66 66 Banks, arms and human rights violations

Document 2013170 and on information gathered in the course of exchanges with
BNP Paribas. The policy governs all business activities related to the defence
sector, the armed forces, the military and others. The policy applies to all
arms and materials used by the armed forces. The policy refers to manufacturing,
trade, stockpiling “and all other activities” (for example, maintenance). The
policy applies to physical and legal persons. It also applies to intermediaries.

- Policy on controversial arms The policy states that the group does not wish
to be involved in the financing of transactions involving controversial arms.
The group also does not want to be involved in the provision of financial products
and services to companies involved in the manufacture, trade or stockpiling
of controversial arms, or any other activity involving controversial arms,
and does not want to invest in these companies. BNP defines controversial arms
as arms having indiscriminate effects and causing undue harm and injuries.
It includes in this category biological and chemical weapons, cluster munitions,
nuclear weapons,171 anti-personnel mines and depleted uranium munitions. BNP
does not finance or invest in certain companies because they produce controversial
arms. BNP maintains a list of companies that are either excluded or being monitored
by virtue of its policy on defence and armaments. This list is based on information
in a database supplied by external providers. In 2013, 90 listed and non- listed
companies were excluded and 31 were being monitored.172 In 2014, the list of
companies excluded 121 listed and non-listed companies and 33 being monitored.173
Excluded and monitored companies are excluded from all bank activities, whatever
the nature of the transaction, or are monitored. BNP was unwilling to give
AI the list of excluded and monitored companies. In addition, in December 2013,
THEAM, BNP Paribas Investment Partners’ partner specialising in index-linked,
systematic, guaranteed and alternative fund management, started to use indexes
excluding

http://www.bnpparibas.com/sites/default/files/ckeditor-upload/files/PDF/RSE/CSR%20-
%20Sector%20Policy%20-%20Defense%20- %20public%20policy%20published%20on%20website%20V2.pdf
170 The deadlines for the production of this report means that the information
used here is taken from the Registration Document of 2013. When possible, BNP
was kind enough to provide more recent data. 171 With the exception of companies
that only participate in nuclear programmes controlled by governments of NATO
countries. 172 Page 400 of the Registration Document And Annual Financial Report
2013. 173 Information communicated by BNP. Amnesty International – January
2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 67

companies with activities involving controversial arms (for example, the MSCI
Controversial Weapons Indexes) for a range of open funds (indexed sub-funds,
SICAV Parworld shares). - Policy on non-controversial arms Non-controversial
arms, by default, are arms not classed as controversial arms. In the case of
non-controversial arms, the company’s approach depends on the final destination
of the arms in question and an assessment of the potentially irresponsible
use that could be made of them. BNP refuses to finance or provide financial
services for the export of arms to countries under arms embargo by France,
the European Union, the United States or the United Nations or responsible
for violations and abuses against children during conflicts. Moreover, BNP
maintains a list of countries considered to be particularly sensitive on the
basis of a series of criteria, including known human rights violations. In
the case of the more sensitive countries, the decision to finance a transaction
can only take place on exceptional grounds and following a strengthened due
diligence procedure. Implementation At BNP, the groups’ senior management determines
policy on the procedures defence sector when it is first defined and every
time it is updated. The CSR department is responsible for making proposals.
Application of the policy is the joint responsibility of the Compliance Office
(the head of which is a member of the group’s executive committee). Since 2012,
the CSR is a group function, led by a general manager who is delegated by the
group. The missions and responsibilities of the CSR department are clearly
defined by a senior management directive. At BNP, the teams analyses the transactions
with reference to the group’s policy on defence and armaments and then make
a decision on whether to refuse or accept a transaction, or, in the event of
any doubt, whether to conduct more detailed research and whether to refer the
transaction to the CSR department. Only sensitive cases are referred to the
CSR department. Transactions with which the teams are familiar are not referred
to the CSR department and are not included in the list of sensitive cases linked
to defence and armaments in order to avoid the burden of reporting. The group
does not have a centralized database recording all defence and armaments-related
transactions, which could be used to conduct a thorough monitoring analysis
of rejected projects. BNP uses the following monitoring indicator: the number
of rejected transactions over the total number of transactions reviewed by
the CSR teams. There is also an internal whistleblowing174 system.

174 Whistleblowing is the act taken by an individual who, in his professional
activity, is witness to illegal acts and warns internal or external authorities
that have the power to end those acts. Amnesty International – January 2016

68 68 Banks, arms and human rights violations

Every year, the number of sensitive transactions reviewed by the CSR teams
is published either in the Registration Document175 or the CSR report. For
example, the Registration Document 2013 states that ”Under the defence policy,
135 sensitive transactions required a specific review by the Group’s CSR correspondents
in 2013.”176 In 2014, 241 transactions were reviewed. The members of the group
refer to the Group Guidelines and sector implementation guides (retail, investment
and financing bank, asset management…) when implementing defence sector policy.
BNP was unwilling to show these guides to AI on the grounds of confidentiality.
BNP reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances and after detailed analysis,
to finance arms sales to countries that have, however, been judged to be sensitive:
“For the “most sensitive countries”, the decision to finance a transaction
can only be exceptional. The decision is taken after a reinforced due diligence
performed by the Compliance teams, following an escalation process over sighted
by the Group Compliance (Financial Security) teams.”177

Training BNP provides training in the implementation of sector policies, including
defence policy.178 It focuses on employees that deal with the corresponding
policies. Training is delivered face-to-face and via a dedicated e-learning
course. Since December 2012, the company has trained 10,476 employees online
on at least one sector policy. The “percentage of employees trained on-line
on sector policies” is one of 13 CSR indicators used by the company179 and
monitored annually by the Group Executive Board. The employee performance evaluation
system takes account of CSR objectives. The company uses nine of its thirteen
CSR indicators to calculate the salaries of the group’s top 5,000 managers.
Performance The employee performance evaluation system takes account of CSR
evaluation objectives. The company uses nine of its thirteen CSR indicators
to calculate the salaries of the group’s top 5,000 managers External experts
BNP uses external providers. It also occasionally uses information provided
by NGOs and other stakeholders. BNP also refers to the

175 Chapter 7 - https://invest.bnpparibas.com/sites/default/files/documents/ddr_2013_bnp_paribas_gb.31981_0.pdf
176 Page 400 of the Registration Document and Annual Financial Report 2013.
177 P.6 in Corporate Social responsibility – sector policy – defence. The document
also states that: “The Group has therefore established a list of particularly
sensitive countries, based notably on the following criteria: (…) known human
rights violations.” 178 Page 428 of the Registration Document and Annual Financial
Report 2013. 179 Page 393 of the Registration Document and Annual Financial
Report 2013. Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 69

recommendations formulated by the working group on sector policies at the Corporate
Social Responsibility Observatory (Observatoire de la Responsabilité Sociétale
des Entreprises, ORSE), which publishes “Lignes directrices sectorielles de
l’industrie de l’armement.”180 BNP told AI that its policy is stricter than
the ORSE’s recommendations on certain points.

ING Policies on defence ING Luxembourg has a written and public policy on defence
and and arms armaments. This is the group’s policy and is therefore not specific
to the bank in Luxembourg. This policy forms part of the ING Environmental
and Social Risk framework, available online since March 2013. The ING Environmental
and Social Risk framework is based on the ING Business Principles, which commit
the company to respect human rights and the environment. On this basis, ING
has developed a series of exclusion policies, including one on defence, entitled
Controversial Weapons & Arms Trade. This policy sets out restrictions to ING’s
financing and investment activities in the defence sector. (1) Policy on non-controversial
arms ING will not have dealings with companies in the defence sector when there
is concrete evidence that these companies make arms available to countries
that are under a weapons embargo, or to terrorists and other non-governmental
armed groups. Furthermore, ING commits not to finance the trade of weapons
to countries in which there is a clear risk that the weapons can be used for
internal repression, serious violations of international humanitarian law or
for any other purpose which cannot reasonably be considered consistent with
normal and legitimate national security and defence. (2) Policy on controversial
arms In 2013, Dutch law restricted investments in cluster munitions. The same
year, several NGOs (PAX, ICAN, etc.) published reports on investment in companies
producing nuclear weapons and expressed their concern about certain investments
made by ING. The company then reviewed its policy on controversial arms and
adopted the following positions :

180 http://www.orse.org/lignes_directrices_sectorielles_de_l_industrie_de_l_armement-52-50.html.
ORSE is a French association, created in June 2000 at the initiative of various
actors, which now includes over one hundred members from large companies from
the world of industry, services and finance; portfolio management companies
and investors; professional and social organizations; environmental and human
rights NGOs. These actors have felt the need to have in France a permanent
monitoring structure on issues that affect social and environmental responsibility,
sustainable development and ethical investments.

Amnesty International – January 2016

70 70 Banks, arms and human rights violations

- ING will not finance the production, stockpiling and trade of controversial
arms (anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, depleted uranium arms, chemical
arms, biological arms) or provide financial services to companies involved
with this type of weapon. ING will not invest its own assets in these companies
and, when legally possible and applicable for ING to act independently, will
ensure that the funds of clients managed by ING will not be invested in such
companies (except for discretionary mandates and exchange-traded funds). -
ING will not finance nuclear weapons. However, in the case of companies that
have nuclear arms-related and other activities, ING may finance non-nuclear
arms-related activities if the companies state that the funds will not be used
for nuclear arms-related activities: “When the excluded activity is a minority
of the total operations of a company or organization, we may finance its non-
controversial activities. If so, we will obtain satisfactory assurance based
on the nature of the transaction, or a confirmation stating that ING funds
are not directly used to finance excluded activities.” So, for example, ING
finances the EADS group, which has activities related to nuclear arms, but
which also has a major role in civil aviation, through its subsidiary Airbus,
on condition that ING funds will not be used for the production of nuclear
weapons. Implementation At ING, the CSR Department proposes, writes, implements
and procedures updates the company’s policy on defence, in consultation with
stakeholders. Implementation of its exclusion policy on defence follows the
ING Group’s approval procedures, which are described in detail in chapters
6 and 7 of the ING ESR framework, entitled “ESR Due Diligence” and “Governance.”
Implementation of the policy mainly takes place at two levels: - The Front
Office collects information on clients and transactions and assesses the level
of risk they present (Client ESR Assessment, Transaction ESR Assessment); -
The Credit Risk Management reviews and approves the assessments made by the
Front Office, and decides whether it is necessary to take additional measures
(for example, put further questions to the client). Other company departments
are involved in the procedure: - The Global Credit Committee (GCC) has the
final say on problems related to Social and Environmental Risk; - The internal
system for credit approval: Signatory Approval Process (SAP); - The Group Credit
Committee Transaction Approval (GCC-TA) which reviews and takes the final decision
on “unacceptable” transactions as laid down in the derogation procedure (ESR
Waiver requests). Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 71

ING provides a detailed description of its procedures in chapters 6 and 7 of
the ING Environmental and Social Risk (ESR) framework, entitled “ESR Due Diligence”
and “Governance”. It uses two types of assessment to identify potential client
and transaction-related risks: - The Client ESR Assessment, carried out as
part of the KYC/CDD procedures; - The Transaction ESR Assessment, carried out
as part of the Credit Approval Package, and following the Signatory Approval
Process (SAP). The company uses this dual procedure to make a general assessment
of the environmental and social risk, according to the following classification:
low, medium, high, unacceptable. ING also uses a list of excluded companies
with links to cluster munitions, which includes the indicative list prepared
by the Dutch Financial Markets Authority in cooperation with the Dutch financial
sector. ING’s policy provides that even “unacceptable” transactions can be
reviewed and accepted on an exceptional basis: “Exemptions to the ESR Policies
shall only occur on a very exceptional basis and may only be granted by GCC
Transaction Approval.” The ING ESR framework does not stipulate on what grounds
transactions initially judged to be “unacceptable” may be finally accepted
and provides no monitoring statistics on the matter. Risk assessment, in accordance
with CSR policy, combines the conclusions reached by the Client ESR Assessment
and the Transaction ESR Assessment. Section 6 of the ESR framework (ESR Due
Diligence) describes four levels of risk in detail: ESR Low risk, ESR Medium
risk, ESR High risk, Unacceptable. Assessment of transactions is carried out
with regard to the following criteria: - Country where ING funds will be used
(with reference to the list of sensitive countries); - Impact on critical natural
habitats, critical cultural heritage sites and/or indigenous peoples; - Alleged
labour and human rights violations; - Nature of activities related to the transaction;
- International (negative) media coverage, NGO scrutiny and/or general public
concern. As the disclaimer in the ESR Framework states, ING’s CSR policy, and
by extension, its policy on defence, is obligatory for all ING Amnesty International
– January 2016

72 72 Banks, arms and human rights violations

Group employees. ING reserves the right to change or withdraw the policy at
any time. The disclaimer also states that the standards applied are subjective
and any decision thereto remains within ING’s discretion. The ING Group evaluates
implementation of the policy on the basis of data collected by a dedicated
online tool, which it uses to evaluate the results of its CSR policy as a whole.
The main results are presented in an annual ING Sustainability Report, which
provides a brief assessment of actions taken by ING on a series of CSR issues,
including defence and armaments.181 ING also has an internal whistleblowing
system that applies to all parts of the company throughout the world (ING Whistleblower
Procedure). Training As its CSR risk assessment procedures are decentralized
and mainly depend on Front Office teams, the ING Group has invested in training
programmes. In 2013 and 2014, the group trained more than 880 employees on
CSR policy and implementation.182 In general, employees concerned (for example,
front team officers) attend training sessions once a year in order to update
their knowledge. Performance Correct application of the rules set out in the
CSR policy (ESR evaluation framework) is compulsory for all group employees
and therefore is not used to evaluate performance and has no impact on pay.
External experts No information available

BCEE Policies on defence Questioned about its policy on armaments and defence,
BCEE said it and arms aimed to be a socially responsible bank, in accordance
with article 5 of the organic law creating BCEE (law of 24 March 1989), which
states that all the bank’s activities should be conducted in a socially responsible
way. BCEE’s mission is to contribute, through its activities, especially its
financing activities, to the country’s economic and social development in all
fields.

BCEE signed a Company Charter for Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development,183
which states that company governance will be sensitive to the impact of its
activities on the economic environment, notably in Luxembourg, its staff, the
natural

181 http://www.ing.com/ING-in-Society/Sustainability/Data-center/Sustainability-reports-archive.htm#
182 ING Sustainability Report 2013 – p.42. 183 https://www.bcee.lu/Découvrir-la-BCEE/Découvrir-la-BCEE/Corporate-
Social-Responsibility-CSR.
Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 73

environment and the local community. The charter makes no mention of the defence
and armaments sector. BCEE also refers to its Socially Responsible Company
certificate awarded by the National Institute for Sustainable Development and
Corporate Social Responsibility (Institut national pour le développement durable
et la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, INDR) in 2012. This certificate
is based on the three traditional pillars of CSR: Social and equality of employment
opportunities – Governance – Environment. Its governance component covers “the
company’s actions vis-à-vis the general public.” However, it makes no mention
of the defence and armaments sector. BCEE applies certain restrictions on investments
in the defence sector, notably towards companies that are active in the cluster
munitions and anti-personnel mines sectors. It refers to the list compiled
by ETHIX184 with reference to the Belgian law of 2007 banning investments in
companies producing anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions.185 BCEE has
indicated that an official list compiled by the Luxembourg authorities would
be useful. Implementation At BCEE, detection of atypical cases is the responsibility
of the procedures Compliance Office, which identifies armaments as a risk sector.
In addition, a Compliance Acceptance Committee meets regularly to review new
client relationships on a case-by-case basis. This committee reviews applications
from intermediaries (including funds) against a set of criteria (compliance,
ethics, etc.). This committee deals with applications from clients that are
atypical because of their activity, structure, etc., (for example, lotteries).
BCEE does not feel it necessary to introduce a formal whistleblowing system
on the grounds that the company’s culture is based on trust and promotes free
communication by employees. Training BCEE has no training or awareness raising
programme focused on arms-related investments. It argues that company culture
is based on trust and facilitates informal exchanges of information between
employees and that this is reinforced by the very low turnover of personnel.
The bank seeks to educate and train rather than proscribe and prohibit. Performance
No information available evaluation External experts BCEE uses VIGEO to incorporate
the assessment of risk factors and ESG performances in SICAV Lux-Equity Eco
Global investment

184 Defining controversial weapons for European institutional investors - Report
on definitions, criteria and process for assessing corporate involvement in
controversial weapons – endorsed by BEAMA - March 2011 - ETHIX SRI ADVISORS.
185 Belgium has never published the official list of excluded companies. Amnesty
International – January 2016

74 74 Banks, arms and human rights violations

procedures. VIGEO carries out quarterly analyses based on a list of exclusion
criteria (controversies regarding respect for human rights, workers’ rights,
respect for the environment, etc.) to review companies referred by BCEE Asset
Management (BCEE-AM). It reports on the degree of exposure to all the indicators
with reference to the exclusion criteria. There are three categories of exposure:
- “Red Light” exposure: serious exposure, requiring an immediate halt to the
investment; - Significant exposure: BCEE halts investment, without internal
discussions; - Minor exposure: BCEE holds an internal discussion on whether
to halt the investment. BCEE says that it uses the criterion of turnover in
the defence and armaments sector of the company in question to classify exposure.
The VIGEO assessments are used for mass market products. In the case of private
portfolios, the client decides whether to use the VIGEO system. BCEE-AM’s portfolio
managers meet regularly and review investments on the basis of VIGEO reports.
In the event of any uncertainty, they refer the case to the Board of Directors.

RAIFFEISEN Policies on defence Raiffeisen has indicated that it does not have
any specific principles and arms on investment other than those imposed by
the law186. It referred to the regulations on money laundering and financing
of terrorism. It makes no investments in the armaments and defence sector,
given its status as a cooperative bank. The bank has no written principles
to guide the nature of its investments, with the exception of the internal
policy that states that the bank must not buy shares.

Raiffeisen stated that before granting credit, the bank conducts a detailed
analysis of the reasons for the request for credit. In addition, Raiffeisen
said that it has controls based on “blacklists” such as the EU’s official lists
(for example, of terrorists), which is available on the CSSF website and the
Office of Foreign Assets Control list. Implementation At Raiffeisen, the Compliance
Office is mainly responsible for the procedures correct application of internal
procedures. There are several levels of control: - the agency administrator;
- internal controls/compliance, which ensure that the

186 With the exception of internal rules. Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 75

administrator has carried out the necessary checks and that the rules are respected;
- the internal audit, which supervises compliance; - the external audit. Depending
on the case, there are several levels of decision making about opening an account
for new clients or accepting new transactions: - the administrator; - the Back
Office, which controls the opening of accounts; - the compliance office, which
checks applications and either rejects them or refers them to the acceptance
committee; - the acceptance committee; - the final decision by the executive
board. Applications by risky clients are analyzed by an acceptance committee
(Comité de Relation de Compte), and depending on the category of risk, even
by an executive board member.

Raiffeisen also has a whistleblowing system: employees are obliged to declare
any suspicion of money laundering and financing of terrorism immediately and
directly to the compliance office. The internal whistleblowing procedure provides
employees with the opportunity to declare their suspicions without implicating
their line manager. Raiffeisen says that it has never had to deal with a case
involving arms trafficking. Training Raiffeisen employees attend training sessions
on money laundering and the financing of terrorism from the moment they are
employed. These include internal training initiatives and certificated external
sessions organized by the IFBL.187 Training covers all primary offences. Every
year, employees must attend “refresher” training. These training programmes
are administered by the compliance office. They are for employees who are in
contact with clients (sales personnel, asset managers, etc.). Performance Raiffeisen’s
employee performance evaluation system includes a evaluation component on compliance
with procedures. External experts No information available

187 Institut de Formation Bancaire, Luxembourg. Amnesty International – January
2016

76 76 Banks, arms and human rights violations

KBL Policies on defence KBL’s Conduct of Business Policy, approved by its executive
and arms committee and Board of Directors, and applicable to all the group’s
subsidiaries, states that the KBL group only has relations with clients, contracting
parties, suppliers and other commercial partners (commercial intermediaries,
external asset managers, issuers of products distributed by KBL, brokers…)
that adhere to the same fundamental values. KBL stated that, since 2004, it
has applied a restrictive policy towards companies with links to the armaments
sector. A number of companies active in the production, sale or stockpiling
of arms are excluded from KBL investments and advice. The list of companies
is regularly updated and communicated to subsidiaries through the group’s intranet.
AI has not had sight of this list. Implementation No information available
procedures Training No information available Performance No information available
evaluation External experts No information available

Amnesty International – January 2016

Banks, arms and human rights violations 77

APPENDIX 3 - GLOSSARY

AI: Amnesty International

AML/CFT: Anti-Money Laundering / Countering the Financing of Terrorism (also
used for Combating the financing of terrorism) ATT: Arms Trade Treaty

CRF: Cellule de Renseignement Financier – Financial Intelligence Unit CSR:188
Corporate Social Responsibility

CSSF: Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier - Finance Sector Supervisory
Commission ESG: Environment, Social and Governance

ESR: Environmental and Social Risk

EU: European Union

GRIP: Group for Research and Information on Peace and Security

ICC: International Criminal Court

IHL: International Humanitarian Law

IHRL: International Human Rights Law

KYC: Know Your Client

OFAC: Office of Foreign Assets Control

ORSE: Observatoire de la Responsabilité Sociétale des Entreprises - Corporate
Social Responsibility Observatory

188 The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) applies the idea of
sustainable development to companies. According to the European Commission,
it is “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society" and
"what an enterprise should do to meet that responsibility" (European Commission,
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:
A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility, COM (2011)0681
final).

Amnesty International – January 2016

78 78 Banks, arms and human rights violations

PEP: Politically Exposed Person

SALW: Small Arms and Light Weapons

SAR: Suspicious Activity Report

UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UN: United Nations

UNGP: United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

WMD: Weapon of Mass Destruction

Amnesty International – January 2016

Telf. 913 101 277
Fax 913 195 334
info@es.amnesty.org