Search results

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected. 

Léon Mugesera, a former politician of the party the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND) in Rwanda, fled Rwanda in 1993 – before the actual start of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 – after the authorities had issued an arrest warrant against him for incitement to genocide and murder, as he had given one of the first inflammatory public speeches that eventually led to the genocide. Mugesera, together with his wife and their five children, sought asylum in Canada, which was granted. However, in 1995, the Immigration and Refugee Board became aware of the arrest warrant and issued an order to deport Mugesera to Rwanda for trial.

After several years of litigation, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the deportation order should not have been issued as there was not sufficient evidence that Mugesera had indeed been involved in the Rwandan genocide as alleged. However, the Canadian Supreme Court quashed this decision on 28 June 2005, ruling that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect standard of review and that, in fact, the Immigration and Refugee Board had been right all along. The deportation order was affirmed.

Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch national, carried out business operations in Liberia since the 1980s. He was the owner and president of two logging companies in operation during the second civil war in Liberia from 1999-2003. The civil war was fought between the Liberian armed forces led by President Charles Taylor on one side and rebel groups on the other. It was alleged that Taylor had financial interests in Kouwenhoven’s businesses and that these businesses were used to facilitate the commission of war crimes. 

Kouwenhoven was charged with a number of crimes related to war crimes committed in Liberia and faced a string of cases in Dutch courts between 2006-2018. In its decision of 21 April 2017, the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch convicted Kouwenhoven and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment for illegally importing weapons and ammunition and complicity in war crimes committed by Charles Taylor’s regime. Kouwenhoven was not protected from prosecution by the Liberian Amnesty Scheme introduced by Charles Taylor’s government prior to Taylor’s resignation. The Court found that Kouwenhoven had deliberately provided the weapons used for the war crimes committed by the combined Liberian armed forces and therefore was an accomplice to these war crimes.

Following the death of Rwandan President Habyariamana on 6 April 1994, ethnic tensions in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations reignited. President Habyariamana’s political party, the Mouvement Républicain National pour le Développement et la Démocratie (MRND) and its youth militia wing, the Interahamwe, began perpetrating a number of widespread abuses against Tutsis and moderate Hutu’s as punishment for what many perceived to be the deliberate death of the former Hutu president.

Georges Rutaganda was a member of the MRND and the Second Vice President of the Interahamwe since 1991. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that he had used his position of authority over the Interahamwe to distribute weapons, order the separation of the Hutu from the Tutsi and direct the massacre of thousands of Tutsis, particularly in connection with incidents at the Amgar garage and the Technical College, ETO. He was convicted of genocide and murder and extermination as crimes against humanity and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal by both the Prosecution and counsel for Rutaganda, the Appeals Chamber had the occasion to clarify the law applicable to the special intent for the crime of genocide and the nexus requirement for war crimes. As a result of its findings in the latter area, the Appeals Chamber entered two new convictions for murder as a war crime, the first conviction of this kind before the Tribunal. Rutaganda’s sentence was confirmed and he was transferred to Benin where he died in prison on 11 October 2010.

Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui was charged with crimes against humanity (crimes committed on a widespread basis and directed against civilians) and war crimes (prohibited acts committed during war) that occurred during the attack against the Bogoro village on 24 February 2003. In particular, the Accused was suspected of killing, training and using children to support his military activities, destroying houses, and attacking the inhabitants of the Bogoro village. These crimes were allegedly committed by the accused together with Germain Katanga and other persons.

Regarding of the use of children, the Trial Chamber stated that these were often present in military groups in Ituri. However, it was not proven that the accused himself trained or involved children under the age of fifteen in war activities.

In addition, it was not proven that the accused was a commander of Lendu group in February 2003. Therefore, he was released. Nevertheless, regardless of the acquittal of the accused, the Trial Chamber emphasised that the acquittal does not mean that crimes were not committed on 24 February 2003 and that the victims did not suffer damages. 

The Prosecutor v Mathieu Ngudjolo case is the second judgment issued by the ICC, and its first acquittal.