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)

[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.]

Introduction

‘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 second (see part I and part II). All of the opinions were delivered orally in Court on 19 February 2026 and have been edited for this publication.

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, 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 attack directed 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.

Photo attribution: Photo by Pao Dayag on Unsplash