The Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights (CLAIHR) and the International Law Students Association (ILSA) University of Ottawa Chapters hosted the 8th Annual Global Generations Conference on February 24th in Ottawa. This year’s conference title “The Way Forward – The Promise of R2P” was selected to recognize the 10th anniversary of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’s (ICISS) Report on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Canada’s Canada’s important role in the creation of this doctrine.

The conference featured student presentations and a panel of experts whose current work engages with the responsibility to protect, including former Canadian Ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock, PC.

To learn more about the conference please read an article published in Canadian Lawyers Magazine 4 Students.

CLAIHR strongly supports and promotes the use of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P”).  The R2P doctrine is the result of a report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, in which Canada played a central role under the direction of our then Ambassador to the United Nations, Hon. Allan Rock.   2011 has seen R2P come to the fore in discussions about how Canada and other nations should respond to the great number of internal conflicts the world has witnessed this year alone.  2011 is also the 10th anniversary of this important development in international law.  CLAIHR is proud to be the only Canadian member of the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.

R2P Symposium

CLAIHR is commemorating the 10th anniversary of the R2P with a year-long symposium.  Our opening event featured Michael Ignatieff at Hart House in Toronto on October 26, 2011.  Professor Ignatieff discussed Canada’s role in international R2P operations and diplomacy and where he sees our future as a nation on the world stage.  

Coming Up September 27, 2012 – To close the symposium, CLAIHR is proud to present a panel discussion entitled, ” Perspectives on Intervention” in Toronto. Panelists who have first hand experience with international intervention will share their insights. Senator Romeo Dallaire will share his experiences and perspectives on intervention from the vantage point being on the ground in Rwanda as part of the UN Mission during the genocide of 1994. Senator Eggleton will share his thoughts from his perspective as the Minister of Defence during the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. Return back to this page for more details on this event as they become available.

What is R2P?

The main concept underlying R2P is that the traditional approach of humanitarian intervention was too blunt a tool to address situations of internal strife causing humanitarian crises.  As a more modern approach and with greater deference to state sovereignty, R2P has three pillars:

1) The State bears the primary responsibility to protect its populations from mass atrocities;

2) The international community has a responsibility to assist States in protecting their populations; and

3) When the State is unwilling or unable to protect their populations, and on a case by case basis, the international community has a responsibility to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner in order to provide protection to the population affected.

Under the third pillar, the international community has a number of options at its disposal aside from military intervention such as preventative diplomacy, fact finding missions, economic sanctions and embargoes and military operations such as no-fly zones, monitoring and civilians defence missions.  Importantly, military measures under this third pillar must be authorized by the U.N. Security Council and only when peaceful measures have proved inadequate.  Humanitarian intervention, however, is not authorized under this third pillar as it is defined as unauthorized coercive action (unilateral or multilateral). Moreover, humanitarian intervention has not been endorsed as a norm by member states of the U.N.

R2P Events

On October 20 and 21  the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University will be holding an important conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

On November 12, the Canadian Centre for Responsibility to Protect will be hosting a conference, Ten Years after ICISS: Reflections for the Past and Future of R2P, commemorating the 10th anniversary of R2P.

CLAIHR is launching its year-long symposium marking the 10-year anniversary of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine at our kick off event with Michael Ignatieff on October 26, 2011 from 6:30 to 8:30 PM in the Music Room at Hart House. Professor Ignatieff will be speaking about this important doctrine, which governs the way the world responds to international crisis situations as an alternative to the more traditional humanitarian intervention model. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine is a Canadian idea, which asserts that if a government is unable or unwilling to protect its own people, or if a government is responsible for ethnic cleansing or massacres, than other countries should step in and help.

Michael Ignatieff is well known in Canada as being the former leader of the Liberal Party, however, he also played an integral role in the formulation of this doctrine. In 2001, Professor Ignatieff was a member of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which released its report on the Responsibility to Protect in 2001. The event will allow attendees to ask Professor Ignatieff questions about R2P and how Canada fits into the global landscape in R2P actions such as crisis in Libya, Syria or other conflict zones, now and into the future.

CLAIHR is proud to present this cocktail reception in conjunction with the newly established University of Toronto student chapter.

This event is sponsored by Torys.

Follow CLAIHR on twitter at @CLAIHR for updates on future events in this symposium.

CLAIHR will be holding it’s Annual General Meeting on July 12 at 6:00 PM for the purpose of reviewing its financial statements for the past fiscal year.  The meeting will be held at 1 Queen Street East, Suite 1620 in Toronto and all current members are invited to attend.

CLAIHR is proud to announce its recent membership in the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect. CLAIHR is the first Canadian NGO to join the international coalition and we  look forward to working with this global network to further promote the principles of the Responsibility to Protect.   The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework to determine when outside intervention is required in domestic crises so that the international community can provide protection to civilians when their government is unable or unwilling to do so.  As part of our commitment to the principles of R2P, CLAIHR will continue its work in education and awareness raising for this important international legal norm in the Canadian context.

CLAIHR President Jillian Siskind speaks about the Responsibility To Protect

On March 26^th, 2011, CLAIHR’s President, Jillian Siskind, delivered the keynote address for a two-day symposium at the University of Toronto titled “Deconstructing Humanitarian Aid in the 21^st Century”.  The symposium was organized by the International Relations Society at the Munk School of Global Affairs and featured many speakers and panellists in the field of human rights.

Delegates were presented with a comprehensive investigation of contemporary issues relating to the politics of humanitarian aid and intervention.  In particular, the symposium offered a well-timed opportunity for students, scholars, practitioners and individuals interested in human rights to gather and discuss relevant human rights issues concerning the recent turmoil in the Middle East.

Jillian provided the delegates with an overview of the legal framework for humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect with the corresponding political considerations inherent in such actions.  The focus then turned to the current armed conflict in Libya, with first the background history of the country, followed by a political discussion of the current crisis and the response of the international community.

Click here to read Jillian’s speech.

Members of the Queen's CLAIHR team (from left): Kristen Allen, Chantel Levy, Allan McGavin, Brittany Sargent, Christine Dowling, Nicole Walton, Natasha Engineer, Courtenay Simmons

Over March 18 and 19, 2011 the Queen’s University CLAIHR and Canadian Lawyers Abroad Student Chapters hosted CLAIHR’s 9th Annual International Human Rights Film Festival. The theme of this year’s festival was Children’s Rights.

Students screened three documentaries, on children in India, child soldiers in rural Uganda, and the challenges faced by youth in the Jane & Finch area in Toronto.

After each film we hosted speakers.  We welcomed Katherine Fournier from Beyond Borders and Catherine McKenna, Co-founder and Executive Director for Canadian Lawyers Abroad, Dr. Walter Dorn, a professor at Royal Military College in Kingston and at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto, Melanie Adrian, professor at Carleton University, and Queen’s Law professors Stan Corbett and Darryl Robinson.

Our Saturday panel included the Hon. Landon Pearson, a long-time advocate for the rights and well-being of children, Saadya Hamdani, Advocacy Specialist at UNICEF, Daren Dougall, Executive Director of the Youth Diversion Program in Kingston, Queen’s Law Professor Nicholas Bala, and Leanne Wight, the Supervisory Duty Counsel at the Family Court in Kingston.

Queen’s CLAIHR hosted almost 140 attendees at the two day festival, raising $230.43 for the World Food Program in North Africa.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in two cases from the Ontario Court of Appeal concerning two Ontario residents who were injured or killed while on vacation in Cuba in the case of Club Resorts v. Van Breda.  The court heard arguments on the ability of a court to hear a case in which the defendant and the injuries were located outside of Canada.  CLAIHR, along with Amnesty International and the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) were given intervenor status together to make arguments at the Supreme Court.  This case was of interest to CLAIHR, CCIJ and Amnesty as it raised the issue of the forum of necessity jurisdiction, which is vitally important for victims of human rights abuses abroad who wish to commence legal actions in Canada.  This jurisdiction is an emerging concept in private international law where litigants may bring actions in tort proceedings involving foreign defendants and extraterritorial events.  The recognition of this jurisdiction would allow Canadian courts to hear proceedings that could not possibly have been instituted elsewhere.   This jurisdiction provides potential litigants with greater access to justice for crimes where legal recourse has traditionally been virtually impossible such as civil claims relating to egregious human rights violations.  With the recognition of the forum of necessity, Canada would allow plaintiffs who cannot return to the country where the harm occurred, without risking their lives or further injury, to institute civil proceedings against the perpetrators in Canadian courts.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized this jurisdiction in limited cases and CLAIHR along with the CCIJ and Amnesty International are seeking confirmation of this approach.  While the Van Breda case does not involve human rights issues, it raises this important issue of jurisdiction that could be a very important tool in assisting victims of human rights violations to find justice in Canada.

CLAIHR, together with the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) and Amnesty International, were granted intervenor status by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Van Breda case and made oral arguments at the Supreme Court on March 21, 2011.  CLAIHR urged the Supreme Court to confirm the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in recognizing the forum of necessity jurisdiction so that victims of international crimes such as torture, war crimes and other serious international offences can seek justice through the civil courts in Canada so long as the plaintiff has some connection with the Canadian jurisdiction of the court.

CLAIHR is represented pro bono by Dr. François Larocque of the University of Ottawa and Mark Power of Heenan Blaikie LLP.

Click here for the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Trial Update

Following his conviction, Mr. Munyaneza appealed both the conviction and his sentence.  CLAIHR, with the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ), has brought a motion to intervene on appeal.  The hearing of this motion is expected to be held in the Fall of 2011.

CLAIHR is represented pro bono by Mr. Fred Headon.

Read the judgment

In the News

McGill Tribune
The Agenda with Steve Paikin

Overview

Désiré Munyaneza, born in 1966, is a Rwandan man being prosecuted in Montreal for crimes committed during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. This case is notable as this is the first person to be arrested in Canada on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. This is the second attempt in Canada to prosecute someone for crimes against humanity for crimes committed abroad in the context of an armed conflict.

In 1994, an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by Hutu extremists in the central African country within a deadly 100 days, in one of the century’s worst massacres.

Among other atrocities, Désiré Munyaneza is alleged to have participated in a mass slaughter of as many as 500 terrified Tutsis seeking shelter in a Roman Catholic church during Rwanda’s 1994 genocide. Munyaneza is also accused of having played a very significant role in rape and sexual violence – having personally raped many women and girls and having encouraged the militia under his command to do the same.

In 1997, Munyaneza fled to Canada carrying a fake Cameroon passport. He immediately filed a refugee claim, insisting that because he was a Hutu, he would be killed if he was sent back to Rwanda.

Mr. Munyaneza’s refugee claim was denied largely on the testimony of an RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) war crimes investigator who linked Mr. Munyaneza to the Rwandan massacre. The Immigration and Refugee Board panel found that there were reasons to believe he had participated in crimes against humanity. According to Art. 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a person is excluded from asylum if there are serious reasons to believe that he or she has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity or has committed an offence against the purposes and the principles of the United Nations.

In October 2005, he was arrested at his Toronto-area home and brought to Montreal to stand trial on charges of rape, murder and looting.

Désiré Munyaneza faces seven charges under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the first prosecution under this Act, including two counts of genocide, two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes. The indictment accuses him of committing murder, psychological terror, physical attacks and sexual violence with intent to wiping out the Tutsi.

The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act was adopted to implement Canada’s obligations with respect to the International Criminal Court and to provide for the prosecution of international crimes before Canadian courts.

Following the unsuccessful prosecution of Imre Finta in the early 1990s, leading to the 1994 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian Department of Justice has focused on citizenship revocation proceedings rather than criminal prosecutions in dealing with alleged war criminals. The Finta decision, which involved the prosecution of a WWII era Hungarian police officer, was unsuccessful largely due to the difficulty in trying a person alleged to have committed crimes 50 years prior. Mr. Finta was charged with manslaughter, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and robbery. He was accused of committing these acts while forcing the deportation of 8,617 Hungarian Jews.

In Finta, there were great difficulties with the testimony of witnesses, including suggestions of unintentional collaboration through stories told over the years since the war. Significantly, the case also provided an interpretation of the ‘military orders defence’ that since the accused was merely following orders he should not be entirely responsible for his actions. Further, the court found that in order to be convicted of international crimes, the perpetrator must have known and understood the context of the crime, meaning whether they knew or ought to have known that a state of war existed and that their actions, even during a state of war, would “shock the conscience of all right thinking people.”

Due to the failure of Canadian authorities to convict Mr. Finta for the crimes he was charged with, it was decided that it would be more expeditious and realistic to focus on immigration law to remove alleged war criminals from Canada rather than to try them for their crimes. For the most part, this has involved former Nazis. While there have been some successes in establishing that they entered Canada under false pretenses, a decision from the court does not lead to deportation. Once it is found they did enter the country unlawfully, the ultimate decision to revoke their citizenship and deport them rests with Cabinet. In order for these individuals to be removed on this basis, Cabinet needs to pass an Order in Council, which has proven to be extremely difficult to attain. Many of these individuals remain in Canada.

However, since the 1994 Finta decision, international humanitarian law has progressed substantially so that the defence that one was merely following orders can no longer shield an individual from accountability. The ad hoc tribunals established to prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and more recently the Special Court in Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court, clearly set out individual criminal responsibility for one’s actions during armed conflict – whether internal or international in nature. The Munyaneza trial is tremendously important for Canada in terms of its own ability to hold war criminals accountable for their actions, but also as an example among its international colleagues in a world where international accountability has tended to be restricted to international tribunals or military courts. Now that international criminal law has become much more firmly established and understood, this case will provide us with an opportunity to send a message that there will be no impunity for such crimes in Canada.

CLAIHR monitored the trial proceedings and is now moving to intervene on appeal.

Trial Highlights

In March 2007, Munyaneza’s trial began with the testimony of a woman, identified only as witness C-15, who stated that she had pretended to be dead for three days and smeared her sister’s blood on her body in order to hide from Interahamwe gangs. [3] [4]

On April 10, a witness known as C-17 testifed that Munyaneza had raped her four times, and that she had witnessed him personally raping and killing others. [5]

On April 11, Munyaneza was severely beaten in his cell at the Rivières-des-Prairies prison by a 17-year old who had heard about the details of Munyaneza’s trial in the media. [6]

Interview on The Agenda

CLAIHR President, Jillian Siskind, discusses war crimes prosecutions and the Munyaneza case on TV Ontario’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin on November 3, 2009.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iIqJn6TFBYw