THE FIRST ECOCIDE TRIBUNAL DELIVERS LANDMARK VERDICT IN BERLIN
The Court of the Citizens of the World - Ecocide Tribunal
Judgment in the People vs. the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina and
Decision on Indictment Confirmation in the Prosecutor vs. Jair Messias Bolsonaro
Part I
Introduction by Stephen Rapp
[Stephen Rapp is a former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice and former international prosecutor at the Rwanda and Sierra Leone tribunals]
‘The Court of the Citizens of the World organized by the Cinema for Peace Foundation, sat as an Ecocide Tribunal in Berlin, Germany, during 16-19 February 2026, to hear witnesses and receive documentary evidence. The Prosecution team included Marc Willers KC (UK), Elise Groulx (France/UK), and Marine Izquierdo (France). Because the respondent States, and the accused individual, failed to respond to notice, the Court assigned Gabriel Vincent Tese (US) and Kirsty Sutherland (UK) to represent their interests. The tribunal consisted of five judges: Stephen Rapp (US) presiding, Kevin Bell (Australia), Goran Lambertz (Sweden), Milena Sterio (US/Serbia), and Bhavani Fonseka (Sri Lanka).
This proceeding involved two distinct cases, heard by the same panel of five judges, the first is based on a civil complaint filed by the Prosecutor on behalf of the People of the World against five States for breach of their obligations under international law as to climate change. The second is based on a proposed criminal indictment filed by the Prosecutor against an individual for international crimes relating to environmental destruction in the Amazon basin of Brazil.
The five judges came to a decision on the civil claims and on the application to confirm the criminal indictment, unanimously as to the relief sought, except that one judge separately concurred, providing different reasoning as to the civil claims. The opinions of the five judges will be published in three posts, of which this is first. All of the opinions were delivered orally in Court on 19 February 2026 and have been edited for this publication.
Stephen Rapp, Presiding Judge (USA):
The Court of the Citizens of the World sitting as the Ecocide Tribunal will now announce its judgment in the civil case, The People versus the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Argentine Republic. We will also announce our decision on the application to confirm an indictment in the criminal case of The Prosecutor versus Jair Messias Bolsonaro.
Each of the five judges will read part of the decisions that we have reached in the civil and criminal cases. I will describe the process and the reasons we are convened as an Ecocide Tribunal. And then I will then yield to each of my colleagues, and they will speak in turn to announce our rulings on the civil complaint and on the application to confirm a criminal indictment.
First, we wish to thank the witnesses who appeared in-person and those who were able to connect with us virtually from the Amazon region of Brazil. We recognize that the proceedings could have been smoother, and so I would like to say them in Portuguese:
Nós, juízes, agradecemos às testemunhas que vieram do Brasil e cujos depoimentos nos permitiram alcançar justiça em nosso caso.
In English: We judges wish to thank the witnesses who have come from Brazil whose testimony has enabled us to achieve justice in our case.
We would like to thank the attorneys for both the prosecution and defence for their very effective advocacy, including the skilful examination and cross examination of witnesses, the presentation of thousands of pages of documents, and the eloquent closing submissions.
We would also like to thank Jaka Bizilj, who is here today, the Founder and Director of the Cinema for Peace Foundation and the World Forum that is being held in Berlin during our proceedings. Most importantly, he established the Court of the Citizens of the World to hear evidence and issue decisions in situations where no official court is presently able to do justice.
Let me emphasize that this Court does not create law, it simply provides a forum where no forum now exists. We do it by recognizing and applying law which has developed internationally either by treaties or customs, and that has defined the rights owed to of all of the world’s citizens as well as duties on States to protect these rights, and which has further defined certain violations committed by persons as international crimes. However, we sit only in cases where there are no official courts with jurisdiction, or where there are courts but there is not the political will or capacity to deliver justice.
This is the fourth convening of the Court of the Citizens of the World. The first case dealt with the criminal responsibility of the Russian leader for aggression in Ukraine. We did so because while the International Criminal Court (ICC), due to Ukraine's declaration, had jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Ukraine, it did not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.
So we sat in The Hague as a tribunal for aggression and we are now pleased to see that the Council of Europe and Ukraine are in the process of establishing an official tribunal for crime of aggression in Ukraine. However, we were able to hear the evidence and render a decision in February 2023, at the first anniversary of the full-scale invasion.
A year later in The Hague, the Court considered the criminal responsibility of the leader of China for international crimes in Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan and the South China Sea. The ICC has no jurisdiction over China, though international law still applies. Unfortunately, there is no official court in the world to hear the evidence and determine whether the leader’s conduct was wrongful and indeed criminal, and no possibility of referral to the International Criminal Court because China has veto power in the UN Security Council.
A year ago, the CCW held its third proceeding, sitting in Berlin during the World Forum, to determine the responsibility of social media companies for the harms they are causing, in particular to children. This was another process to provide relief where a judicial avenue does not presently exist at the international level. https://www.the-court.eu/the-social-media-tribunal-verdict
Today we conclude four days of proceedings, to decide what the law provides as to the State responsibility of certain governments and as to the criminal responsibility of an individual for climate change and harms caused to the natural environment.
On this matter, we have the benefit of the law as recognized by the highest court in the world, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in an advisory opinion issued last June. It is the most authoritative statement of international law, and we would expect it to be applied by the ICJ in a contentious case between States.
However, none of the most responsible states have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to be sued and to be ordered to provide relief for their wrongs. And so, as a result, our court meets to do what International Court of Justice cannot yet do. But again, we are not creating new substantive law because the ICJ has recognized the right of the citizens in the world to a safe, healthy, and sustainable environment.
We are asked by the Prosecutor to issue a decision in both civil and criminal cases. The first does not seek to put anybody in jail. It is not against persons, but against States because of their failure to fulfill their legal obligations. We will decide that case on the merits and enter final judgment.
We also have heard evidence in a criminal case in a preliminary proceeding as could be done at the International Criminal Court. The Prosecutor has applied to confirm an indictment for crimes against humanity allegedly committed by former President Bolsonaro of Brazil. We are not asked to convict him, but only to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for him to be arrested and ordered to stand trial.
Of course, the ICC does have jurisdiction in some country situations over four international crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. But there is not yet a crime of ecocide in the ICC Statute. The Prosecutor would like us to declare that there is already such a crime, based not on treaty, but on customary international law, in the same way that the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II recognized crimes against humanity.
However, we do not find sufficient state practice or sufficient declarations by multilateral bodies to say that ecocide is now an international crime. We are bound by the principle of legality. We cannot charge someone with a crime for conduct that was not recognized as criminal at the time the person acted.
The prosecution as alleged that ecocide was committed as defined by in a draft statute proposed by a group of international experts in 2021. This proposed law was discussed at a panel during this World Forum. It would make it criminal for a person to commit “unlawful and wanton acts with knowledge that there was substantial likelihood that those acts would cause severe, widespread or long-term damage to the environment.”
We proposed statute goes further than present international criminal law, because that law has been focused, at least when it comes to crimes committed outside wartime, on direct harms to human beings. Certainly crimes against the environment can harm human beings, but that harm may come only decades or generations after environmental harm. This new law would essentially recognize the environment itself as a potential victim.
Having heard the evidence, we can see strong merit for States approving the proposed law as an amendment to the ICC Statute, or for individual countries to adopt similar national laws, as have Belgium and Ukraine. But today, we must decide whether to confirm a proposed indictment under present law, by determining whether there are substantial grounds to believe that Jair Bolsonaro committed acts that would constitute crimes against humanity. Judges Sterio and Fonseka will be setting out the law and our findings of fact in the crimes case.
However, it is important to note that as to Bolsonaro and alleged crimes against humanity, there not an actual jurisdictional gap because the International Criminal Court does have jurisdiction over such crimes if committed in Brazil during the years 2019 to 2022. We understand that victims have made submissions to the ICC Prosecutor under article 15 of the Rome Statute with similar allegations, but that there may be a resource gap that has prevented the ICC considering additional situation countries. We hope that our findings may encourage the opening of a preliminary examination.
We also need to say a word about the connection between the civil and criminal cases, as we heard one of the defense attorneys argue that there was no relationship between the conduct alleged in the two cases. Yes, it is true that the criminal allegations do not allege harms caused directly by climate change. Instead, the Prosecutor has asserted the Accused is responsible for actions that have destroyed the rain forest in order to enable the mining of gold in a manner that has created toxic byproducts such as mercury that have poisoned waterways, and that has also opened the way for slash and burn agriculture. It is further alleged that this has rendered the land no longer available for the indigenous population nor supportive of their ways of living in harmony with nature.
While these harms are not caused by climate change, they have made it more difficult to mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing the size of rain forests that naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. All of the National Determined Contribution (NDC) pledges filed by States under the Paris Agreement are counting on this natural absorption to reach their climate goals. For instance, each of the five respondent States have filed NDC plans promising to reach “net zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 or 2060. Their commitments are graphed in the charts published by the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) and the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) offered by the Prosecution.
For instance, the case of the United States, the NDC filed by the Biden Administration promised to reduce carbon dioxide emission from about 6 billion metric tons in 2021 to 1 billion metric tons by 2050 and asserted that amounted to “net zero” because of it was counting on the 1 billion metric tons being absorbed from the atmosphere.
One of the most important places that absorption occurs is in the world’s rain forests, where the chlorophyl in trillions of leaves takes the energy from the sun’s rays, and carbon dioxide from the air, and creates vegetation which provides cover and nourishment for animal and human life. Anyone who destroys that great live-preserving habitat makes it much harder for the world to achieve net zero emissions and prevent the harms caused by climate change.
I will now turn to the civil claims, which are founded on the ICJ’s recognition of a human right to a safe, healthy, and sustainable environment, and the commitment of the world’s governments in Paris agreement to protect this right by acting to limit the increase of global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
But now despite the pledges, we are at 1.44 degrees over the pre-industrial level. We're almost there. And the kind of immediate actions necessary to keep us under 1.5 are almost impossible. The clock has ticked down. The time has almost run out. This is also have taking into account the significant progress that has been achieved due to diligent efforts on the part of some States, and economic factors that have favored the development of renewable resources such photovoltaic cells and wind power for production of electricity, and the reduction in use of fossil fuels in transportation through large increases in the numbers of electric vehicles.
Sadly, as can be seen from the CAT and CCPI, based on the overwhelming scientific consensus that has gone into their calculations, we are on a glide path by the end of this century to reach 2.6 degrees over the pre-industrial level. We have heard from the experts of the horrors that will befall our Earth if we go to 2.0, including the submergence of small island states and of major coastal cities, and the extreme weather events such devastating droughts and more destructive storms. But we are in fact heading to 2.6, which will result in even worse harms.
That 2.6 degrees represents the collective effect of the actions of States, some worsening the problem and some working to mitigate the problem. From the evidence that we have heard the five States sued by the Prosecutor are doing the most to worsen the problem. That is first and foremost because the plans that filed do not include provisions that will result in the achievement of their promised goals. And of course, one of these countries, the United States, under its current administration, has abandoned the plans, insufficient as they were, and denied the reality of anthropogenic climate change, rejecting the right of citizens to a safe, healthy, and sustainable environment, and instead reversing national level efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission--essentially pouring gasoline on the fire.
If other States follow the US lead, or the lead of the other four States, the glide path will rise even higher and effects will be far more grave. As shown in the Climate Action Tracker, if everyone follows US and Russia global temperatures will be more than four degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100. If they follow the other three states, Argentina and China and Saudi Arabia, they will be between three degrees and four degrees above those levels.
From the evidence presented by the Prosecution, these five states are at or near the bottom of list as to the sufficiency of their response with the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina rated by the Climate Action Tracker as “critically insufficient” and China as “highly insufficient.” There are other States whose response is also insufficient, but these five states are now producing 49% of greenhouse gases, and they have the greatest potential, and thus responsibility, to solve the problem.
Under the Paris Agreement each state was to exercise due diligence, not necessarily all doing the same thing, because their situations and capacities are not the same, but having common obligations to act but in differentiated ways. Due diligence requires every state’s highest possible ambition and that ambition was different in 2020 that it will be in 2030 or 2040. As new technology comes online, they should make the best use of it. Their highest possible ambition requires an ever more energetic response.
We also wish to make it clear that it does not make a material difference whether a state is under the Paris agreement or has renounced it. Last year, US President Trump tore up the Paris Agreement for the second time. However, the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion has determined that the obligations of all states arise from customary international law that originates from human rights treaties and customs, from unanimous declarations like those of the United Nations General Assembly, and from the policies and practices of more than 100 states to control greenhouse gas emissions and implement that commitment through government action.
So we have both civil and criminal cases before us, the first as to the failure of five States to fulfill obligations under international law and the second as to the alleged commission by an individual, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, of crimes against humanity, charged in seven counts. On the first we believe that we have heard sufficient evidence to render judgment, based on preponderance of the evidence or balance of probabilities. On the second, we will proceed only to determine with there are substantial grounds to believe that the Accused committed these crimes, which is the standard to be applied under Article 61 of the Rome Statute and Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of the Citizens of World. On that basis we can confirm an indictment, order arrest, and direct that he be brought to trial where he would have effective counsel and where a court would determine whether there was evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But now for a discussion of law and the facts as to both the civil and criminal cases, let me turn to my colleagues. The first is Judge Kevin Bell, formerly a judge Supreme Court of the state of Victoria, Australia, for his opinion regarding the responsibility of the States in the civil case.
The Court of the Citizens of the World - Ecocide Tribunal
Judgment in the People vs. the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina and
Decision on Indictment Confirmation in the Prosecutor vs. Jair Messias Bolsonaro
Part II
Alleged Breaches of State Obligations by Kevin Bell and Goran Lambertz
[Kevin Bell is former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia) and Adjunct Professor at Monash University. Goran Lambertz (Sweden) is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of Sweden and former Chancellor of the Courts of Sweden]
‘The Court of the Citizens of the World,’ organized by the Cinema for Peace Foundation, sat as an Ecocide Tribunal in Berlin, Germany, during 16-19 February 2026, to hear witnesses and receive documentary evidence . The Prosecution team included Marc Willers KC (UK), Elise Groulx (France/UK), and Marine Izquierdo (France). Because the respondent States and the accused individual have failed to respond to notice, the Court assigned Gabriel Vincent Tese (US) and Kirsty Sutherland (UK) to represent their interests. The tribunal consisted of five judges: Stephen Rapp (US) presiding, Kevin Bell (Australia), Goran Lambertz (Sweden), Milena Sterio (US/Serbia), and Bhavani Fonseka (Sri Lanka).
This proceeding involved two distinct cases, heard by the same panel of five judges, the first is based on a civil complaint filed by the Prosecutor on behalf of the People of the World against five States for breach of their obligations under international law as to climate change. The second is based on a proposed criminal indictment filed by the Prosecutor against an individual for international crimes relating to environmental destruction in the Amazon basin of Brazil.
The five judges came to a decision on the civil claims and on the application to confirm the criminal indictment, unanimously as to the relief sought, except that one judge separately concurred, providing different reasoning as to the civil claims. The opinions of the five judges will be published in three posts, of which this is the second. All of the opinions were delivered orally in Court on 19 February 2026 and have been edited for this publication.
Kevin Bell, Judge (Australia):
The People’s civil complaint contends that the five respondent States are bound by general international legal obligations in respect of the environment to prevent and mitigate climate change which they have violated. In my opinion these contentions have been established. I concur in the opinion of Judge Lambertz as to what these obligations specifically entail, the remedies that should be granted and the orders that should be made. I also concur in the opinion of Judge Rapp, the Presiding Judge, Judge Sterio and Judge Fonseka with respect to other issues in the civil and criminal cases.
International legal obligations of States
As counsel for the People contend, the international legal obligations of the respondent States may be ascertained by refence to the unanimous decision of the judges of the International Court of Justice (‘the ICJ’) in the Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change dated 23 July 2025 (‘the Advisory Opinion’). This Advisory Opinion was given in response to a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations dated 29 March 2023 which requested that the ICJ (among other things) identify ‘the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations.’
Consistently with other decisions of courts of high international authority, the ICJ decided and I respectfully agree that States have obligations erga omnes under international law in respect of the environment to prevent and mitigate climate change under three categories: (1) climate change and related treaties; (2) customary international law; and (3) international human rights law.
Climate change and related treaties
The ICJ identified several treaties imposing obligations on State parties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment. It referred particularly to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. As regards the Paris Agreement, the ICJ decided that State parties are obliged to limit the global average temperature increase by comparison with pre-industrial levels to 1.5°C. It decided that State parties were obliged to exercise due diligence and employ their best efforts using all means at their disposal to perform this obligation and related obligations in other treaties.
The respondent States except the USA are State parties to the Paris Agreement and therefore are bound by these obligations. The USA is bound by like obligations under the other two categories of international legal obligation.
Customary international law
Customary international law arises under international law applying generally to States whether they are parties to treaties or not. Applying the proper principles for determining the question, the ICJ decided that all States have an obligation under customary international law to prevent significant harm to the environment.
The ICJ decided that States have an obligation of due diligence to meet this obligation, which is a stringent standard. This means that a State must ‘use all means at its disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in its territory or, in any area under its jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State.’
The ICJ decided that, to determine whether a State has exercised this due diligence, it is necessary to consider several matters. These include whether the State has adopted appropriate measures and has considered scientific and technological information. To adopt appropriate steps means that the State must ‘put in place a national system, including legislation, administrative procedures, and an enforcement mechanism necessary to regulate the activities in question and … to exercise adequate vigilance to make such a system function efficiently, with a view to achieving [the objective of preventing environmental harm].’
The ICJ also decided that States are under an obligation to cooperate with each other to achieve protection of the environment, and for developed States to assist less developed States in this regard.
International human rights law
As the ICJ decided, climate change undermines the enjoyment of all human rights. These include the right to life, the right to health, the right to water, the right to an adequate standard of living including housing, and the right to privacy, family and home. The ICJ specifically referred to the way in which climate change undermines the enjoyment of human rights by women, children and Indigenous communities.
The ICJ decided that the interdependence between human rights and the protection of the environment resulted in a human right to a clean, health and sustainable environment which is inherent in other human rights. Therefore, States have obligations under international human rights law to respect and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights by taking necessary measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.
Violation by respondent States of their international legal obligations
Counsel for the People contended that the respondent States have violated these international legal obligations in respect of the environment to prevent and mitigate climate change by (a) failing to adopt appropriate, substantial, rapid and sustained measures to mitigate greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions; (b) failing to regulate the emission of GHG by both private and public actors within their jurisdiction; and (c) failing to provide adequate international cooperation and/or climate finance to assist vulnerable States and communities to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. I accept this submission.
Counsel for the States accepted that global warming was occurring but relied on physics-based scientific evidence disputing a causal link between increasing carbon dioxide (‘CO2’) levels and that warming. In essence, Counsel contended that it was not established that global warming was due to anthropogenic causes. I do not accept this submission.
Many courts and tribunals of high international and national standing have carefully examined the climate science-based and other evidence and found that increased GHG production (including CO2) in the industrial era has caused global warming which is increasing and leading to catastrophic climate change. The ICJ made the same finding in the Advisory Opinion, accepting the evidence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that ‘[h]uman activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming’. I find that the climate science-based and other evidence in the present case establishes that global warming is due to anthropogenic causes, principally increased GHG production, including CO2. The three other judges and I respectfully disagree with the opinion of Judge Lambertz on this issue.
Counsel for the People relied on the inadequacy of the States’ efforts to prevent and mitigate climate change as evidenced by the Climate Action Tracker, which was explained in detail in the evidence of Jan Burck, Senior Advisor at Germanwatch e. V. I accept this evidence, which establishes that the States have not exercised due diligence and employed their best efforts using all means at their disposal to perform their international legal obligations in respect of the environment to prevent and mitigate climate change. Nor have they met their obligation to engage in international cooperation. These failures constitute international wrongful acts for which the relief sought by the People as specified in the opinion of Judge Lambertz should be granted.
Goran Lambertz, Judge (Sweden), concurring separately:
I agree with the majority's conclusions regarding the civil complaint and with most of the analysis.
I agree with the majority's reasoning on the question of whether the five Respondent States have breached binding commitments and on the relevance of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. I also agree with the majority's reasoning regarding the assessment of the lack of action of the five Respondent States and their breaches of obligations under the Paris Agreement.
However, I disagree with the majority on the question of whether the prosecutor has proven that carbon dioxide emissions in violation of the Paris Agreement have caused the damage to the earth that have come, and continue to come, with global warming.
The question of the cause of global warming involves a decisive scientific issue: What role does the addition of carbon dioxide, and thereby the burning of fossil fuel, play for the warming of the atmosphere? The international agreements in this area are based on the premise that carbon dioxide supply is crucial. However, there is a scientific position that questions this starting point, a position which has been expressed by the defense witness in the case, Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. In his view, the supply of carbon dioxide plays a very small role for the rise in temperature, and he is therefore of the opinion that the burning of e.g. oil, coal and natural gas has no major impact on the global warming which undoubtedly occurs.
The main argument for this scientific position is that the relationship between carbon dioxide input, on the one hand, and temperature increases, on the other, is logarithmic. This means that the effect on temperature becomes less and less with continued supply of carbon dioxide. Finally, the curve flattens out so that there is no effect at all when more carbon dioxide is added. Dr. Happer put it this way: To the extent that carbon dioxide supply warms the atmosphere, it has already had almost all the effect that it can scientifically have.
Another argument that carbon dioxide supply is not the main cause of global warming is that it has not been determined what is the cause and what is the effect between CO2 and global temperature. There is data to suggest that variation in atmospheric temperature precedes variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide content. It is generally believed that this was the connection when the earth warmed up after the last ice age some 10 000 years ago.
But if it is not carbon dioxide that causes global warming, then it must be something else. The most likely then seems to be that we are in a long-term climate cycle similar to the cycles that have occurred in the past and where it is known that the last long ice age had its peak about 20 000 years ago. Since then, there has also been the “Little ice age” between about 800 and 200 years ago.
As to other alternative climate-impacting parameters, we have very little knowledge. The impact of clouds is probably strong, but very poorly known at both system and detail level. Ocean currents and the impact of tectonics/volcanism on the climate are poorly understood, as are solar activity and the effects of cosmic rays.
I cannot know which of the possible scientific explanations for global warming is the correct one. But I find it difficult to get past Dr. Happer's main argument, that the relationship between carbon dioxide supply and temperature rise is logarithmic. If this is true, and I have not heard any significant objections to it, then carbon dioxide supply simply cannot be the main cause of the global warming taking place today.
As already stated, I still share the view of the other judges on the action brought against the five Respondent States. In my opinion, they are obliged to comply with the commitments they have made in international agreements, at least as long as it is assumed that the scientific basis for these agreements is correct.
The Court of the Citizens of the World - Ecocide Tribunal
Judgment in the People vs. the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina, and
Decision on Indictment Confirmation in the Prosecutor vs. Jair Messias Bolsonaro
Part III
The Alleged Criminal Responsibility of Jair Bolsonaro by Milena Sterio and Bhavani Fonseka,
and Orders for Civil Relief and for Indictment Confirmation by Stephen Rapp
[Milena Sterio is a Distinguished Professor of Law at Cleveland State University and Managing Director of the International Law & Policy Group. Bhavani Fonseka is a human rights defender and transitional justice expert from Sri Lanka. Stephen Rapp is a former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice and former international prosecutor at the Rwanda and Sierra Leone tribunals]
‘The Court of the Citizens of the World,’ organized by the Cinema for Peace Foundation, sat as an Ecocide Tribunal in Berlin, Germany, during 16-19 February 2026, to hear witnesses and receive documentary evidence on civil claims against five States, and on a proposed criminal indictment. The Prosecution team included Marc Willers KC (UK), Elise Groulx (France/UK), and Marine Izquierdo (France). Because the respondent States and the accused individual have failed to respond to notice, the Court assigned Gabriel Vincent Tese (US) and Kirsty Sutherland (UK) to represent their interests. The tribunal consisted of five judges: Stephen Rapp (US) presiding, Kevin Bell (Australia), Goran Lambertz (Sweden), Milena Sterio (US/Serbia), and Bhavani Fonseka (Sri Lanka).
This proceeding involved two distinct cases, heard by the same panel of five judges, the first is based on a civil complaint filed by the Prosecutor on behalf of the People of the World against five States for breach of their obligations under international law as to climate change. The second is based on a proposed criminal indictment filed by the Prosecutor against an individual for international crimes relating to environmental destruction in the Amazon basin of Brazil.
The five judges came to a decision on the civil claims and on the application to confirm the criminal indictment, unanimously as to the relief sought, except that one judge separately concurred, providing different reasoning as to the civil claims. The opinions of the five judges will be published in three posts, of which this is third. All of the opinions were delivered orally in Court on 19 February 2026 and have been edited for this publication.
Milena Sterio, Judge (USA/Serbia): We have been asked to determine whether there are substantial grounds to believe that Jair Bolsonaro, the former President of Brazil, has committed acts which amount to crimes against humanity and ecocide. As the prosecution has withdrawn the specific charge of ecocide, we will not focus in this Judgment on that evolving crime. Before we address the substantive law on crimes against humanity, we will offer three preliminary conclusions regarding the Court’s jurisdiction and competence; standard of proof; and modes of liability.
Jurisdiction and Competence
As a preliminary remark, we note that the CCW has jurisdiction over “any and all sovereign states, heads of state, governmental institutions, individuals in their personal or professional capacities corporations, and any other legal or natural entities, regardless of their domicile, nationality, or governing authority” under Rule 18 of the Court’s Statute. Moreover, under Rule 19, the Court’s competence extends to “serious and systematic violations of human rights, In particular, …. the core crimes as defined by the Rome Statute, namely, (i) genocide as defined by Article 6; (ii) crimes against humanity as defined by Article 7; (iii) war crimes as defined by Article 8; and (iv) the crime of aggression as defined by Article 8 bis.” We conclude that both the jurisdictional and the competence requirements have been met in the present case.
Standard of Proof
Under Rule 30 of the Court’s Statute, and Article 61 of the Rome Statute, we are asked to determine whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused has committed the crimes that he is charged with. For reasons which will be specifically announced and enumerated below, we find that there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused is responsible for crimes against humanity: acts of persecution as well as other inhumane acts. As will be explained below, we conclude that there are not substantial grounds to believe that the accused is responsible for crimes against humanity of murder, extermination, forcible transfer of population, and rape.
Modes of Liability
International criminal law provides for different modes of liability. An accused can be a direct perpetrator, but they can also bear individual criminal responsibility for indirect perpetration of crimes, such as ordering, facilitation, conspiracy, or aiding and abetting. The presence of these different modes of liability is both logical as well as fundamental in international criminal law: most individuals accused of atrocity crimes are not the foot soldiers, but rather those most responsible for the indirect commission of such crimes through their roles as political, military, administrative or informal leaders.
In the present case, we determine that Jair Bolsonaro bears indirect criminal responsibility for the commission of crimes against humanity. Such indirect criminal responsibility regarding Jair Bolsonaro is grounded in the Rome Statute, specifically Article 25(3)(b) which criminalizes the ordering, soliciting or inducing the commission of a crime; Article 25(3)(c) which criminalizes the commission of a crime through aiding, abetting or assistance; and Article 25(3)(d) which criminalizes the commission of a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose.
Crimes Against Humanity
With these preliminary conclusions settled, we will move onto the international criminal law on crimes against humanity. Article 7 of the ICC Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity as “any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture; (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (i) Enforced disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
The so-called chapeau elements of crimes against humanity require a finding of either widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population with knowledge of such attacks. First, attacks for the purposes of crimes against humanity are understood as “A campaign or continuous line of conduct involving the commission of acts listed in Article 7(1).” In the present case, in light of evidence presented, which will be detailed by Judge Fonseka, we determine that there has been an attack against the civilian population of the Amazon region. Second, the indictment alleges that Jair Bolsonaro engaged in systematic attacks directed against a civilian population; we will thus focus on the requirement of systematic attacks as opposed to widespread. Systematic attacks for purposes of crimes against humanity under international criminal law are understood as highly organized, non-random acts of violence against a civilian population, conducted according to a planned policy or pattern. Unlike “widespread” (large-scale) attacks, “systematic” emphasizes the organized nature, such as coordinated efforts, logistical support, or repeated, similar crimes by authorities or armed groups. Based on the evidence presented, which will be detailed below, we determine that this contextual element of crimes against humanity has been met – the attacks directed against the indigenous Amazonian population occurred in a systematic manner over a period of time.
Third, the indictment alleges that Jair Bolsonaro had knowledge of the attacks; based on the evidence presented, we also find that this contextual element has been met. Bolsonaro, as President of Brazil, was aware of and had knowledge of the various illegal activities which were occurring in the Amazon region under his watch, amounting to crimes against humanity. The indictment alleges that Jair Bolsonaro is responsible for murder, extermination, forcible transfer of population, rape, persecution, and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity. As already mentioned, we determine that there are substantial grounds to believe that Jair Bolsonaro is responsible for the commission of persecution and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity; we will thus focus our legal conclusions on these two crimes under international criminal law. We do not deny that murders, rapes, extermination and forcible transfers of population may have occurred within the Amazon region; we simply determine that based on the evidence presented to us, there are not substantial grounds today to conclude that such crimes can be attributed to Bolsonaro.
The Rome Statute in Art. 7(2)(g) defines “persecution” as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.” Under the Rome Statute, persecution has to be committed in connection with another crime within the Rome Statute; because we conclude that Jair Bolsonaro is also responsible for the commission of other inhumane acts under Art. 7(1)(K), we thereby determine that the “in connection with” element of persecution has been met in the present case.
The ICC Rome Statute does not define “other inhumane acts” under Art. 7(1)(k). However, during the Rome Statute negotiations, drafters understood this provision as a catch-all, encompassing crimes which were not specifically enumerated in Art. 7(1), but which, in light of their gravity and their widespread and systematic nature could and should amount to additional crimes against humanity. In the present case, we determine that Jair Bolsonaro is responsible for other inhumane acts, such as deliberately or recklessly causing severe environmental degradation, mercury contamination, deforestation, illegal mining, destruction of subsistence and other environmental resources, displacement of indigenous populations from access to lands which not only provide their subsistence but which also coincide with their cultural and spiritual belonging, thereby intentionally inflicting great suffering and serious injury to physical and mental health, on a systematic scale.
My colleague will discuss specific evidence which in our collective judgment supports the finding that Jair Bolsonaro is responsible for the commission of two counts of crimes against humanity, namely persecution and other inhumane acts. Bhavani Fonseka, Judge (Sri Lanka): At this stage of the confirmation of the charges I will be examining whether there are substantial grounds to indict the accused of the charge of Count 5: Crimes Against Humanity – Persecution (Article 7(1)(h)) Count 6: Crimes Against Humanity – Other Inhumane Acts (Article 7(1)(k))
As Judge Sterio has already set out, Article 7 of the Rome Statute sets out the acts that fall within Crimes against Humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. It must also be noted that acts should not be random, accidental, or isolated but evidence must demonstrate that the acts are committed in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit an attack. The court was provided information this week through testimony of local communities, indigenous groups, activists and experts and we thank them for engaging with the court despite challenges that Judge Rapp has referred to. During the period of 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022, the accused was the President of the Federal Republic of Brazil and exercised authority over the federal government, the Armed Forces and others. As such he was in charge of key institutions with relevance to extractive, agribusiness, and financial operations within the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve and the Yanomami Indigenous Territory. Evidence presented to the court shows that the Bolsonaro administration dismantled environmental protections and defunded the institutions such as the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) mandated with environment protection and monitoring that impacted the above areas. Encouraged and incentivised land grabs and illegal mining and construction that resulted in deforestation. This was done through public pronouncements, appointments of officials and (as we heard today) the demoting of others that contributed to deforestation, the undermining of land reservations and indigenous areas. A state policy during this period that is directly attributed to the accused and was carried out with his full knowledge and approval. These were systematic actions that resulted in a health crisis such as the spread of infectious disease, high carbon emissions, loss of livelihood, food crisis, malnutrition and starvation, water scarcity and contamination of water, sexual assault and prostitution, and threatening the survival of entire communities. The evidence before court shows widespread implications for the local communities and indigenous groups and to their traditional activities and tribal lands on the basis of ethnic and cultural grounds by depriving them of fundamental rights to land, health, food, and security. Further, the court heard of patterns of violence, intimidation and surveillance faced by environmental defenders, media and community leaders who work in the above two areas resulting in a context that is fraught with fear and uncertainty. The court was also presented evidence that demonstrates the accused not only induced, facilitated, encouraged but knowingly failed to prevent acts that resulted in the above and its consequences.
Considering the evidence before the court, we believe the prosecution has been able to demonstrate substantial grounds to believe that there was a widespread and systematic attackdirected against the civilian population, with knowledge of such attack, and the specific acts required for the following counts- Count 5: Crimes Against Humanity – Persecution (Article 7(1)(h)) Count 6: Crimes Against Humanity – Other Inhumane Acts (Article 7(1)(k)) Further, we note that the evidence presented to court this week was insufficient for confirmation as to Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and that Count 7 cannot be confirmed as it is based on ecocide, a crime not yet recognized under international law, and has been withdrawn by the Prosecution. I now turn to Judge Rapp for the conclusion of this judgement Stephen Rapp, Presiding Judge (USA): So now, on this 19th of February 2026, the Court of the Citizens of the World, enters judgment, in the case of the People, represented by the Prosecutor, versus the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Argentine Republic, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China.
The Court declares that each of the respondent states is in breach of its international obligations, recognized by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of June 2025. The Court finds that each of respondent states has failed to:
1) Adopt and implement comprehensive domestic measures to rapidly reduce GHG emissions in line with the 1.5°C limit;
2) Regulate the GHG emissions of private and public entities within their jurisdiction;
3) Cooperate internationally through finance, technology and capacity-building;
4) Provide transparency and accountability consistent with the requirements in the Paris Agreement; and
5) Prevent foreseeable transboundary and intergenerational harm.
The failure of each Respondent State to comply with its climate change obligations constitutes an ‘internationally wrongful act’.
The Court therefore orders and decrees that each State shall:
1) Strengthen its emissions targets to align with the 1.5°C limit;
2) Halt the approval of new fossil-fuel extraction and power-generation projects that are inconsistent with the 1.5°C limit;
3) Strengthen domestic frameworks to ensure that the GHG emissions of private and public entities are regulated;
4) Revise NDCs to bring them in line with the latest IPCC pathways for limiting global warming to 1.5°C;
5) Increase climate funding, technological transfer and capacity-building support for developing and vulnerable States;
6) Establish transparent and robust monitoring, reporting and verification; and
7) Create mechanisms consistent with the requirements of the Paris Agreement.
The Court further Declares that the failure of the respondents to act as the Court directs may result in further legal consequences, including an order that they pay reparations for harm caused in the event that proceedings are brought against them by affected States. The decision to enter judgment against each of the respondent states and order relief was made unanimously by the judges, however one Judge, Goran Lambertz, concurs specially for reasons set forth in his separate opinion. As to the criminal case, this Court sits as a pretrial chamber to determine whether there are substantial grounds to believe that indictable acts under international criminal law have bee committed. The court today, confirms an indictment for crimes against humanity, against Jair Messias Bolsonaro, specifically for the crimes against humanity or persecution and other inhuman acts, as follows:
Count 1: Crimes Against Humanity – Persecution (Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute). The Accused intentionally and systematically persecuted Indigenous and traditional communities, including the Yanomami and the residents of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, on ethnic, cultural, and political grounds by depriving them of fundamental rights to land, health, culture, food, and security.
Count 2: Crimes Against Humanity – Other Inhumane Acts (Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute). The Accused committed other inhumane acts by deliberately or recklessly causing severe environmental degradation, mercury contamination, destruction of subsistence resources, and the collapse of health systems, thereby intentionally inflicting great suffering and serious injury to physical and mental health. It dismisses four other counts of alleged crimes against humanity, and one count for alleged crime of ecocide. The decision to confirm the criminal indictment was made unanimously by the judges. We also find that there is justification for issuance of a warrant for the arrest against Jair Messias Bolsonaro for the perpetration of crimes against humanity.
The Court of the Citizens of the World now stands in recess until its next proceedings.