Richard Meeran, the Leigh Day solicitor heading the legal team, described the case this way:
“The company must have been aware of the inhuman treatment of the victims during their three-day ordeal at the Rio Blanco mine.Yet there is no evidence of it taking any steps to prevent the harm. On the contrary, it would appear that the company was working in cahoots with the police. It is vital that multinationals are held legally accountable for human rights violations occurring at their overseas operations.”
What the former mine employees say
According to statements by former mine employees, the police arrived by helicopter and were taken to the dining area, where they received instructions directly from the mine’s manager. The manager is said to have warned them that they were at risk of being overrun and killed by the approaching protesters if they did not take “all necessary measures.” The statements further allege that security staff told police where to deploy, and that the commanding officers of the police did not speak at these briefings.
One of the former mine employees stated that before the protest began, the manager of the mine’s security force gave orders to the 
police “pointing out strategic points of the operation on a map, for instance, geographical points, the rotation of the police personnel, and the dangers they could encounter in each area. He also explained that they had to report every ten to fifteen minutes via the radio to the management of the mining company.”
When the protesters arrived, he added: “The police shot teargas immediately. I saw the community members who wanted to talk but this was immediately denied and they were teargassed. After this clash the community members, who were about 500 or 600, retreated and stopped at about fifteen meters from the police. It could be observed that among the protesters there were some children, young ladies, and elderly people.”
More wrongdoing
In the course of preparing for trial, the lawyers learned that the company’s alleged complicity in the repression of its opponents did not start or end with the three days of torture. Instead, witnesses contended that for a year before and a year after those events, numerous other violent and provocative acts were carried out against mine opponents.
A two-day hearing was held before the High Court in early 2011 to consider whether these other acts could be considered “as evidence that the mistreatment in 2005 was ordered and orchestrated by Monterrico/Rio Blanco, and as showing that the actions of the officers of Monterrico/Rio Blanco in July 2005 were part of a larger strategy of intimidation and violence directed against mine opponents.” The court ruled for the victims, allowing the claims to be amended to include the allegations of past and subsequent complicity by the company in the wrongdoing.
Justice for the victims
The case was scheduled for a ten-week trial in London in October 2011, with the victims planning to call eighty witnesses to testify. 
One of the torture victims The parties reached a confidential settlement in July, under which the victims have received compensation payments. The clients, Leigh Day, and EDLC are all very pleased with the excellent result. This case marks the first time a European corporation has been sued for torture.
Peruvian protesters tortured
- Rio Blanco Copper, public statement of January 16, 2009