War crimes trial underway in Montreal
By Jayne Stoyles

The case against Desiré Munyaneza began in March in a Montreal courtroom, for charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes related to the atrocities committed against millions of Rwandans in 1994. 

Mr. Munyaneza, a former militia commander and a Hutu, is accused of committing murder, psychological terror, physical attacks and sexual violence against Tutsis, including raping many women and girls and encouraging his subordinates to do the same. He fled Rwanda in 1997 and came to Canada using a fake passport and filing a refugee claim. He was arrested in Toronto by the RCMP in October 2005.

Government of Canada figures show that more than 800 war criminals and human rights abusers currently live in Canada. Yet there have been no trials for war crimes in this country since a handful of cases against former Nazis failed in the early 1990s.

In 2000, as part of its commitment in ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Canada passed a new law intended to clarify that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction to hear such cases. Yet there has been little commitment to use the law, with only the Munyaneza case initiated since its enactment. Immigration remedies such as deportation or exclusion continue to be used as a simple means of ridding ourselves of the problem, with little regard to the consequences of failing to seek justice internationally or here in Canada.

One of the key questions in the minds of Canadians who are aware of the case against Mr. Munyaneza is why he should be tried in Canada. The other options would be the UN Tribunal for Rwanda, or the national-level process that involves a form of people’s court coupled with more traditional trials. (The International Criminal Court [ICC] does not have the jurisdiction to hear cases arising from the Rwandan genocide as the Court came into effect on July 1, 2002 and cannot address situations that arose before that date.)

The problem is that both the UN tribunal and the national-level courts are extremely overburdened and are never going to be able to try all the perpetrators. For that reason, it is more a choice of having a trial here in Canada or none at all; or if Munyaneza were tried in Rwanda that would inevitably allow someone else to go free. 

It is also important to note that the Minister of Justice of Rwanda welcomed the announcement of the arrest of Desiré Munyaneza in Canada in 2005; the Rwandan government and justice system collaborated in the investigation and in the taking of testimony in Rwanda from victims and witnesses unable to travel to Canada. The Rwandan community in Canada has also been very supportive; for example, there is a network of Rwandan Canadians called PAGE Rwanda that is emphasizing the importance of Munyaneza’s trial in Canadian courts.   

In the broader context, what is important to understand is that there is a system of international justice that has been emerging over the past 10 to 15 years. It includes the ad hoc tribunals and courts set up by the UN for specific situations, the new ICC, and trials at the national level, both in the affected countries themselves and in other countries like Canada. This is designed as a ‘system’ and the various pieces have to work together, with different options chosen for different situations, to ensure that there is no safe haven for war criminals and human rights abusers. We are all affected – in myriad ways in our increasingly interdependent world – by the commission of atrocities such as genocide and crimes against humanity.

When Canada ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC in 2000, it committed to participating in the system.  In other words, it agreed to support the global movement for justice by allowing Canadian courts to use the principle of ‘universal jurisdiction’ and initiate cases for serious crimes of international concern that have no direct connection to Canada. 

Indirectly, there is of course a connection, as there is a large Rwandan-Canadian community with a great stake in the trial, and there are numerous other communities in Canada that have been affected by atrocities. Statistics provided by the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture indicate that 25–30% of all refugees globally have experienced torture; the figures are much higher for those coming from countries that have been through armed conflict and genocide. 

Most countries in the world have made the commitment to initiate national-level cases for serious crimes of international concern. Few are living up to their promise. Canada still lags behind many Western states, such as the Netherlands, the UK, Spain, Denmark and France, which have used universal jurisdiction laws to try perpetrators from Rwanda, Afghanistan, Argentina, Uganda, Mauritania and more.

That Canada has initiated only a single case in the seven years since passing new legislation and making an international commitment is a disgrace.

We need to do better going forward – significantly better, given what is at stake. Those of us working in directly relevant or related areas need to raise the profile of this issue at every opportunity. We need to generate the interest in fulfilling our obligation on this issue, regardless of which party is in power. Ultimately, the federal Department of Justice’s war crimes unit must be vested with negotiating for the best option for justice in each case, whether international or domestic, and must have the resources to initiate domestic trials when this is the most appropriate approach. 

In the meantime, the world will be monitoring the trial of Desiré Munyaneza.