Canadian Courts and Crimes Against Humanity

Posted on: 03 November 2009 by Sandra Gionas

Student intern Allison Buchan-Terrell brought this important issue to our attention and subsequently co-produced tonight's interview. She writes today’s blog:

I remember an interview I did as a student journalist with a French professor who survived the 1994 Rwandan genocide that left hundreds of thousands dead. If one can put human tragedy succinctly, some members of his family did not survive. What I remember most to this day is the hurt caused by the international community's response. I also remember his anger at Canada for harbouring some of the perpetrators. It was bad enough we stood by while it happened, he said, but worse we let it go unpunished.

We let it go unpunished until the trial of Desire Munyaneza. Last Thursday, Justice André Denis of Quebec Superior Court sentenced Munyaneza to 25 years in jail with no chance of parole — the harshest sentence possible under the newly-enacted Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Munyaneza was tried and convicted for his role as a leader of a Hutu militia during the Rwandan genocide. But why are we trying him in Canada?

Munyaneza's case is a test the new war crimes act adopted in June of 2000 to bring Canada in accordance with the Rome statute that established the International Criminal Court. Munyaneza came to Canada in 1997 with a fake Cameroonian passport and sought refugee status. His claim was rejected as RCMP evidence linked him to the genocide. But he wasn't deported. When the Act came into effect, and the Canadian government had enough evidence, he was arrested and charged in 2005. His trial lasted two years and cost Canada $1.6-million. But his conviction is a watershed for international law in Canada. We are the first nation to prosecute and convict a resident for war crimes committed in another nation. With this precedent, international legal experts anticipate more cases in the future.

Why not just send him to Rwanda or to the International Criminal Court? Well, the question of whether to prosecute crimes under international law is a complex. If we send him back to Rwanda, there is no guarantee he will get a free trial or a trial at all. The Rwandan justice system is still backlogged with cases associated with the genocide and its jails are overflowing. But it is also a matter of principle: Canada could prove, perhaps to survivors like the professor I interviewed, that we are not a safe haven for war criminals, a charge often associated with this country.

This isn't the first time we've tried to prosecute war criminals. Canada used to have a provision under the criminal code where we could charge for international crimes. In the 1990s, Canada tried to prosecute Imre Finta, a WWII-era Hungarian police officer allegedly involved in the forced deportation of Hungarian Jews to Nazi concentration camps. He was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada largely because it was too hard to try a person for crimes committed 50 years earlier; especially when the case rests on witness testimony.

After this decision, the Department of Justice focused on revoking citizenship and deporting alleged war criminals rather than trying them. But even this was problematic — even though a court would find reason to deport them, many alleged war criminals remained in Canada.

An implicit factor in this case was Canada's reputation. It was important to establish that war crimes — whether at home or abroad — are every country's responsibility. Now, we might face some tough questions, such as what to do when the alleged war criminal is a citizen of an ally of Canada’s, such the United States.

We put some of these questions to Jillian Siskind, president of Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights. She not only followed the Munyaneza case, but worked in the department of justice on war crimes cases and at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, drafting the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic.

Do you think it was right to try and sentence Munyaneza in Canada?

Allison Buchan-Terrell is a second-year student in Ryerson’s Master of Journalism program.

Permalink | Add Comment Now | Comments[3]

Comments

One question

While it is imperative we not harbour war criminals, there seems to be a legal problem here. If he was prosecuted for crimes committed prior to 2000, how can a law passed in 2000 bind on those acts? It has always been a crucial part of our heritage that no law could be retroactive. Having said that, it is a pity that the war crimes law could not have a more severe penalty.

posted by John Humphrey, nerd on 03 November 2009 at 6:45 PM

Harbouring war criminals

I do not think that the Canadian taxpayer should be footing the bill, which is probably in the hundreds of millions to prosecute war criminals and imprison them when their heinous crimes have been committed elsewhere. Send them back to their place of origin on the grounds that they lied on their immigration papers. We do not want them here.

posted by BorisTheYounger on 03 November 2009 at 9:51 PM

Who pays the lawyers ?

Boris: Harbouring war criminals......I do not think that the Canadian taxpayer should be footing the bill, which is probably in the hundreds of millions to prosecute war criminals and imprison them when their heinous crimes have been committed elsewhere

Precisely ! How did this gentleman end up in Canad in the first place, and without immediate deportation once his real self was known. Makes our border security a joke ! To allow such proven global criminals into the country, then extend full protection under Canadian law as if he were a Canadian citizen keeps boggling my mind. And for 10 years to elapse ? Sorry, this taxpayer thinks we have more deserving cases to spend money on. Next question: who pays the lawyers ????

posted by DieterH on 03 November 2009 at 10:04 PM