Our approach

Civitas Maxima appreciates that the path to justice is often long. Statutes of limitations often do not apply to the kind of crimes we investigate, allowing us to initiate legal proceedings against perpetrators long after the crimes were committed. If there is impunity in the country where the crimes were committed (i.e. no territorial jurisdiction), and the alleged perpetrator under investigation does not live in or have the citizenship (i.e. active personality jurisdiction) we nevertheless continue to document and preserve information.

This enables us to be prepared to file a complaint against the alleged perpetrator if and when they travel and/or relocate to another country where this is possible. Alternatively, prosecution may become possible at a later stage in the country where the crimes were committed and/or of which the alleged perpetrator is a citizen. Civitas Maxima only works in jurisdictions with fair and impartial justice mechanisms.

Civitas Maxima often pursues justice for victims in outside of the country where the crimes took place. In these situations, victims and witnesses are typically located thousands of miles away from the authorities conducting the investigation. Under such circumstances, Civitas Maxima can function as the link between the victims, witnesses and information on the ground in the country and the authorities of the investigating jurisdiction.

We do this by collaborating with the investigating authorities, assisting them in following relevant leads and providing any logistical and other assistance required. Civitas Maxima can also formally represent victims as civil parties to the proceedings and collaborates with local lawyers who are qualified to do this in the relevant country.

Legal systems with jurisdiction over foreign alleged perpetrators do not always have legislation permitting criminal prosecutions of such persons for the historic conflict-related crimes they allegedly committed (such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, or torture). In such cases, creative legal approaches are necessary. For example, in the United States it is often not possible to charge a non-citizen with international crimes. However, it can be possible to charge them with other federal criminal offenses, such as immigration fraud and perjury for lying about their involvement in international crimes to immigration authorities. This was the case for example in the “Jungle Jabbah trial”, where Mohammed Jabbateh was convicted for immigration-related crimes.

While it is clearly preferable for perpetrators of conflict-related crimes to be prosecuted and convicted for the atrocities they were involved in, where this is not legally possible, using alternative legal avenues – particularly those that enable victims and witnesses to testify in court about their experiences – can nonetheless represent a form of meaningful justice for the victims.

Many of Jungle Jabbah’s victims said that even though he was not charged for his crimes during the war, it was found significant that, for the first time, a leader of a warring faction was criminally tried in connection to atrocities committed during the First Liberian Civil War, and that they had been given a chance to tell their stories. The wider Liberian public celebrated the case as a success in the fight against impunity.

As part of its flexible and creative legal approach in cases where national criminal proceedings are not at all possible, Civitas Maxima may launch civil proceedings (for example claims for monetary damages) against an alleged perpetrator. In other situations, we might also engage with international, regional, criminal, or human rights courts which have jurisdiction.