Court orders Dutch firm to compensate Iranian victims for mustard gas attacks in 1980s

The court in The Hague ordered the Dutch company Forafina Beleggingen (formerly KBS Holland) to compensate five Iranian victims who sustained injuries or health damage during poison gas attacks in the 1980s. The amount of compensation has yet to be determined. KBS Holland did not appear during the trial in June.

The Dutch company Melchemie (Now Otjiaha), owned by billionaire Hans Melchers, who died early this month, is not liable for personal injury, the court ruled.

The Iranians were soldiers or volunteers in the Iranian army when they suffered horrific injuries as a result of Iraqi attacks with mustard gas, their lawyer Lisebeth Zegveld said. They were fighting in the border area between Iran and Iraq at the time and were between 16 and 22 years old. According to the victims, the Dutch companies are liable because they supplied Iraq with raw materials for making mustard gas.

They still suffer from severe health damage and problems with their lungs, eyes, and skin. “The impact of mustard gas never stops and only gets worse,” Zegveld said during the trial.

The court concluded that when Melchers supplied thionyl chloride to Iraq almost 40 years ago, it was not yet widely known that the Iraqi regime was using mustard gas in its war against Iran. “Disregard Iraq’s use of thionyl chloride for the production of that gas,” the court said in the judgment. “That substance can also be used for peaceful purposes, for example, as an agricultural pesticide or for the production of plastics.”

The court stated that the Dutch government encouraged trade with Iraq in the early 1980s and that the raw material was not on a list of items that required an export license. This only happened years later. The court said that demonstrates that it was not established that Melchers knew, or should have known, that Iraq was using mustard gas in the war with Iran at the time.

The fact that Forafina Beleggingen was held liable for damage is partly because the company did not appear in the case and, therefore, did not mount a defense. As a result, the court was only able to dismiss the claims against the company if they seemed unfounded or unlawful. That was not the case, the judges ruled.