Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:21:46.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Denial of residence status to alien on grounds of genocide—application of Refugee Convention— duty to extradite under Genocide Convention—use ofNGO reports and experts in municipal proceedings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Bernard H. Oxman  and
William A. Schabas
William A. Schabas
Affiliation:
University of Quebec at Montreal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mugesera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Immigration and Refugee Board (Appeal Division) of Canada, November 6, 1998.

In its landmark ruling of September 2, 1998, in the Akayesu case, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) reviews the background of genocide in that country, noting in particular the role that hate propaganda played in preparing the tens of thousands of “willing executioners” who participated in the crimes of April to July, 1994. According to the Rwanda Tribunal, the “most notorious” propaganda agent was “a certain Leon Mugesera,” an extremist pamphleteer who gave a public speech in November 1992 calling for the extermination of the Tutsi. Mugesera fled Rwanda in the weeks following die incident. With the help of a network of aid workers, academics and diplomats that he had nurtured over many years, he was able to flee to Canada and obtain permanent resident status there.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 529 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgement, No. ICTR-96-4-T, paras. 39, 88, & n.54 (Sept. 2, 1998) <http://www.un.org/ictr>, summarized in 93 AJIL 195 (1999).

2 Dec. 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277.

3 Mugesera, Immigration & Refugee Bd., File No. QML-95-00171 (July 11, 1996) (Turmel, Arb.). For the French version of the decision, see 7 Revue Universelle des Droits de l’Homme 190 (1996).

4 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, supra note 1, para. 496.

5 Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/71, para. 24, reprinted in UN Doc. A/50/709-S/1995/915, Annex II.

6 Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgement and Sentence, No. ICTR-97-23-S (Sept. 4,1998), reprinted in 37 ILM 1411, para. 39(x) (1998).

7 International Federation of Human Rights, Inter-African Union of Human Rights, Africa Watch & International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights Violations in Rwanda since October 1, 1990, at 23–26 (1993); see also Colette Braeckman, Rwanda, Histoire d’un genocide 138–39 (1994); Gérard Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide, 1959–1994, at 171–72 (1995); Filip Reyntjens, L’Afrique des Grands Lacs en Crise 119–20 (1994); Africa Rights, Rwanda: Death, Despair and Defiance 70–71 (1994).

8 Report by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on his mission to Rwanda, 8–17 April 1993, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.1, para. 9.

9 Id., paras. 56–58.

10 Id., paras. 78–81.

11 The Appeal Division considered significant the fact that the NGO commission’s work is discussed in the United Nations “Blue Book” on Rwanda, The United Nations and Rwanda 1993–1996, UN Sales No. E.96.I.20 (1996).

12 July 28, 1951, 189 UNTS 137.

13 This language is incorporated without change in Canada’s Immigration Act, R.S.C., ch. I-2, §2(1) and schedule (1985).

14 See Irwin Cotler, Case note, Regma v. Finta, 90 AJIL 460, 475–76 (1996).

15 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, SC Res. 955, annex, Art. 1, UN SCOR, 49th Sess., Res. & Dec, at 15, UN Doc. S/INF/50 (1994).

16 There is no extradition treaty in force between the two states, although Rwanda has asked that an instrument be negotiated. In any case, recent amendments to Canada’s Extradition Act have eliminated the requirement of a treaty in such cases.

17 La Presse (Montreal), Jan. 17, 1996, at A6.

18 Canada has already lost one such petition before the Committee, a case involving return to Pakistan. Khan v. Canada, 15 Hum. Rts. L.J. 426 (1995).

19 See Carla J. Ferstman, Rwanda’s Domestic Trials for Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, Hum. Rts. Brief, Fall 1997, at 1; Robert F. Van Lierop, Rwanda Evaluation: Report and Recommendations, 31 Int’l Law. 887 (1997); William A. Schabas, Justice, Democracy and Impunity in Post-Genocide Rwanda: Searching far Solutions to Impossible Problems, 8 Crim. L.F. 523 (1997).

20 Amnesty International, Rwanda: First Defendants Faced Unfair Trials (AI Index No. AFR/47/03/97, 1997); and Grave Doubts about the Fairness of the First Trials (AI Index No. AFR/47/13/97, 1997).

21 Human Rights field operation in Rwanda, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/61, paras. 9, 36–38.

22 Report on the situation of human rights in Rwanda submitted by the Special Representative, Mr. Michel Moussalli, pursuant to resolution 1997/66, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/60, para. 40(g).

23 At present, neither Canadian policy nor Canadian law prohibits extradition in cases where capital punishment may be imposed. See Kindler v. Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779. See also William A. Schabas, Case note, Kindler v. Canada, 87 AJIL 128 (1993).

24 See Luc Reydams, Universal jurisdiction over atrocities in Rwanda: Theory and practice, 1 Eur. J. Crime, Crim. L. & Crim. Just. 18 (1996).