CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 in the petitions. The respondents included the Government of Israel, various high-level public officials in that Government and various corporate entities, including Green Park International and Green Mount International. 4.3 Regarding proceedings in Canada, the State party explains that the basis of the civil action was the plaintiffs’ allegation that by constructing and selling condominium residences in the Modi’in Illit settlement, the two corporations were assisting Israel in transferring part of its civilian population to territory in the West Bank. The corporations had therefore assisted in the perpetration of war crimes contrary to various international and domestic legal instruments, making them civilly liable to the plaintiffs under the Civil Code of Quebec. The remedies sought by the plaintiffs included declarations as to the illegality of the defendants’ conduct and punitive damages. 4.4 Green Park International and Green Mount International filed motions arguing, inter alia, that the issues raised by the plaintiffs had already been decided by the Israeli Supreme Court and that recognizing the latter’s decisions should lead to dismissal of the action. The Superior Court chose to recognize three of the decisions of the Supreme Court; however, it concluded that such recognition did not settle all the issues raised in the Canadian court and, consequently, there was no res judicata. 4.5 Green Park International and Green Mount International also argued that the Superior Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens. The Court accepted this argument and decided that the courts of Israel were in a better position to adjudicate on the claims contained in the action, such that the Superior Court should exercise its exceptional power to decline jurisdiction. This decision was taken pursuant to article 3135 of the Civil Code of Quebec, according to which: “Even though a Québec authority has jurisdiction to hear a dispute, it may exceptionally and on an application by a party, decline jurisdiction if it considers that the authorities of another country are in a better position to decide”. The decision to decline jurisdiction was based on the following considerations. 4.6 First, there appeared to be little connection between Quebec and the persons involved. All the plaintiffs and witnesses resided in Israel or the West Bank. Furthermore, although Green Park International and Green Mount International were legally incorporated in Quebec, this was essentially their only link to Canada. According to an affidavit filed by their president, the corporations had been incorporated in Canada for domestic Israeli tax reasons only; they acted as alter egos for and on behalf of a corporation which was not a resident of Canada and did not have any assets in Canada, and they themselves had no assets whatsoever in Canada. 4.7 Second, there appeared to be little, if any, connection between Quebec and the facts at issue. All injurious acts allegedly occurred in the West Bank; any relevant contracts would have been entered into in the West Bank or Israel, and were likely to be written in Hebrew or Arabic; any material evidence was likely to be situated in Israel or the West Bank; and the action could be expected to involve little to no evidence of events in Quebec. 4.8 Third, the orders requested by the plaintiffs would require enforcement by the courts of Israel, rather than those of Quebec. Even if the defendants were being sued for punitive damages, the corporations have no assets in Quebec. Their assets, if any, would appear to be located in the West Bank, where the buildings in dispute are situated. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were seeking injunctive relief from Quebec courts with respect to the corporations’ activities in the West Bank, and the enforcement of any such orders would therefore require a further application by the plaintiffs in the appropriate courts in Israel. This additional procedure would be unnecessary if the action were brought before the Israeli High Court of Justice. 4.9 Fourth, the applicable law in determining the plaintiff’s action would be the law applicable in the West Bank. Expertise in such law would be possessed by judicial authorities in Israel rather than Quebec. 4.10 Fifth, although the plaintiffs’ choice of a Quebec forum for their action might have some significant advantages for them, this factor had little weight because the plaintiffs GE.17-21900 7