Rwandan War Crimes Verdict Issued In Canada; First Of Its Kind

MONTREAL — A Rwandan man was found guilty Friday of war crimes during his country's 1994 genocide, becoming the first person convicted under a new Canadian law that allows residents to be tried for crimes committed abroad.

Desire Munyaneza, 42, faces a possible life sentence. He was found guilty of all seven charges against him, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for his alleged role in the rape and slaughter of at least 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda.

"The educated son of an important bourgeois family in Butare, Desire Munyaneza was at the forefront of the genocidal movement," Quebec Superior Court Justice Andre Denis said in his landmark ruling that followed some six months of deliberations.

The judge found that Munyaneza sought to destroy the Tutsi ethnic group in Butare and the surrounding area.

"To that end, he intentionally killed Tutsi, seriously wounded others, caused them serious physical and mental harm, sexually assaulted many Tutsi women and generally treated Tutsi inhumanely and degradingly," Denis noted in his written decision.

The judge also said Munyaneza was among a group of assailants who killed hundreds of Tutsi refugees at a church.

Munyaneza, a Hutu, is the first defendant to be tried under the 7-year-old War Crimes Act.

"I'm very happy he was found guilty. I want to thank and congratulate Canada," Caesar Gashabeze, a genocide survivor, said outside court. "We have been waiting for this."

Story continues below

advertisement

Munyaneza was living in Toronto when he was arrested in October 2005 after reports that he had been seen circulating among Canada's Rwandan community. At the time, African Rights, a Rwandan group that has documented the genocide, linked Munyaneza to key figures indicted by the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

During his trial, more than 66 witnesses testified in Montreal, and in depositions in Rwanda, France and Kenya, often behind closed doors to protect their identities. Many accused Munyaneza, who was 27 at the time, of being a ground-level leader in a militia group that raped and murdered dozens.

Munyaneza's defense centered on claims that many of the witnesses' testimony was faulty and that many were unable to identify his prominent facial scar.

Defense lawyer Richard Perras said he would appeal. "The evidence did not justify a conviction," he said.

Canada denied Munyaneza refugee status in September 2000 and he has since lost several appeals. Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board also found there were reasons to believe he had participated in crimes against humanity.

Bruce Broomhall, an international criminal law professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal, said the verdict adds weight to the argument that Canada does not allow war criminals to live within its borders.

"This sends an important signal that Canada is on board with this international movement to find war criminals wherever they hide themselves," Broomhall said.

A sentencing hearing was scheduled Sept. 9.

Comments

[Archivist1000]

............. and yet, Canada didn't arrest bush when he visited Calgary a few months ago ... baby steps, baby steps I know, but OH CANADA! such leadership that would have shown to the world ...

[GrahamInCanada]

I do not believe that any competent person has made a bona fide complaint of war crimes against any President of the United States to Canada or the United States.

However, if the United States or other such competent person were to complain to Canada about any American war criminal, I am sure we would not simply ignore it.

Canada does not automatically prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity in Canada. The policy options, as documented by the Canadian Department of Justice, are as follows:

* prosecution in Canada under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
* extradition to a foreign government (upon request);
* surrender to an international tribunal (upon request);
* revocation of citizenship and deportation;
* denial of a visa to persons outside of Canada;
* denial of access (ineligibility) to Canada's refugee determination system;
* exclusion from the protection of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees;
* inquiry and removal from Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and/or
* the designation of governments considered to have engaged in gross human rights violations under 35(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2007/doc_32020.html

[LeeCalif]

Great job, Canada.

Now, what can you do about the rogue CIA in the US.

Please help us stop them.

[mamapanya]

Canada - I applaud you just as I applauded General Dallaire who was in charge of the peacekeeping force when the killings were happeningin 1994.
No one can even begin to understand the relief and sense of justice one feels when you know the sounds of loud,drunk and vicious gangs waving a machete or club hunting you down, standing in a knee deep swamp or when you know the smell of death as you lie among the dead hoping no one will hear you breathe! - Its been 15 years and its almost as if the stories of the dying (by the hour, by the day) are still coming through....
Again, Canada I applaud you and so do all the survivors choosing to live and to forgive - living side by side with their perpetrators! How sickly ironic that his name, "Munyaneza" means one who does well or good!

[GrahamInCanada]

Amy Luft's lede is factually incorrect. She wrote,

"MONTREAL — A Rwandan man was found guilty Friday of war crimes during his country's 1994 genocide, becoming the first person convicted under a new Canadian law that allows residents to be tried for crimes committed abroad"

Our not so very new law complies with the Rome Statue of the International Courts, which the US opposes, on the logic that the US will always be willing and able to prosecute its own war criminals.

Our jurisdiction applies to "Every Person", not just Canadians, not just residents, it is not confined like the US government would like it to be confined.

It is a new area of the law, where Canada is in line with international law and the US is not. Just to be clear, to quote from our act:

Place of trial
9. (1) Proceedings for an offence under this Act alleged to have been committed
outside Canada for which a person may be prosecuted under this Act may, whether or
not the person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada and
the person may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner
as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.

www.iccnow.org/documents/Canada.CrAgH.WcrEng.pdf

The safeguard is that only the Attorney General of Canada can prosecute, a very rare reservation in Canadian law.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

The U.S. government opposes this law, and rightly so, because it doesn't accept or believe in the concept of "universal jurisdiction". Universal jurisdiction impedes on the sovereign rights of countries.

There are plenty of weak countries that are willing to give up their sovereignty, because it doesn't mean much to them. Our independence and our rights of self-determination mean everything to the U.S. It's the reason this country came into existence.

[GrahamInCanada]

Well, I see many, many accusations of naming persons as American war criminals and wondering why Canada does not arrest and try them when they venture across the border, right here, in this very conversation. I did not make such accusations, but it does set one wondering, doesn't it?

Either the US is willing and able to try its own war criminals, or it is not.

The US does believe in the concept of "universal jurisdiction", it is a founding member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council, oh, I could go on and on, generations of proof up to this very moment.

You yourself do not believe in "universal jurisdiction", in opposition to your own government, ironic, as one of the accused in this conversation himself stymied US domestic recognition of the Rome Statute using similar bluster.

Nevertheless, the Rome Statute is not a US law, it is international law, and it is in effect, whether the US likes it or not, war crimes and crimes against humanity are universal crimes in international law, and that does not infringe on the sovereign rights of countries, and not one sovereign country, not even yours, has the right to authorize crimes against humanity or war crimes, or protect criminals from the full might (such as it is) of international law.

[devilyousay]

Did Rwanda apply to extradite this man? Would this man be tried and his victims receive due justice in Rwanda? Don't the victims who came forward live in Canada? Why would they send him to Rwanda then, when there's no gurantee that under their system of justice, other victims would feel safe to come forward?

The difference with the Nazi's in Germany is that the Germans had a justice system set up and prepared to process the allegations with due process of law.

Rwanda and Germany are not the same thing.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Rwanda has been prosecuting crimes from the '94 genocide since 1996 - their process should be respected...

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/descriptions/rwanda.htm

[GrahamInCanada]

We are following their process, and our process.

Rwanda has requested extradition from Canada for at least five other, higher level suspected war criminals. Under our process, we cannot return them because their safety in Rwanda cannot be guaranteed at this time.

Rwanda itself says in these circumstances, we should prosecute them ourselves, if we can't return them.

You should show a lot more respect, and get rid of that chip on your shoulder that has you defending convicted war criminals in circumstances and crimes you know nothing about as evidenced by your posts.

[offred]

Add Canada to the list of places that Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Yoo, etc., can no longer visit.

[sedum]

If only that were true. You forget that we have a province called Alberta where war criminals are welcomed with open arms and closed minds.

Once, liberal Ontario was anathema for such subhumans but I hear now that Bush will be visiting..­....again.

[CJWebber]

Unfortunately, visiting doesn't count. They have to be living Canada.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

The proper thing to do would've been to extradite him to Rwanda and let him be tried by the Rwandans. The same way Nazi war criminals are extradited.

This is an insult to Rwandan sovereignty and their rights of self-determination.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this monster walking free, I want the sovereignty of Rwanda and all other non-European countries respected. Western countries have it in their minds that they don't have to respect the sovereign rights of African, Asian and South American countries. From Panama, to Somalia, to Iraq, to Cuba, etc.

I guess old colonial habits die hard - where was the military and war crimes trials when the Afrikaaners were committing genocide against the indigenous South Africans? They had to be heavily pressured just to divest in the criminal Afrikaaner terrorist regime, let alone war crime trials and military intervention on behalf of the Black South Africans.

I'm not impressed with this verdict or the trial at all - in fact it's highly insulting.

[GrahamInCanada]

The genocide in Rwanda happened as the Canadian military stood and watched, in lead of an International Peace Keeping Force that were refused permission to intervene by the UN Security Council, partially because of US opposition.

The genocide traumatized our military and our government and our nation, and Canada feels a special responsibility to ensure that crimes committed under our watch are prosecuted.

That is the anti-thesis of colonial, and Canada had every right, as does any nation, as does the International Criminal Court.

It is highly insulting to Rwandans and Canadians that you pretend insult at the conviction of a proven war criminal.

[goddessNdiva]

What is insulting is that Canada stood and watched as the crimes were being committed and than think they can judge.

The genocide traumatized the Rwandans more than the Canadian army. Canada has no right to pass any judgment.

[Yermammy]

What about people that would invade a sovereign nation, murder 4200 of it's own troops and a million innocent civilians? In an illegal war prosecuted on lies. When do we get Canadian style justice? What about War Crimes (torture) and Crimes against Humanity (aggressive war) for these people I'm talking about? If we had an Attorney General, we could do that... oh wait! We do.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

C'mon mi amigo, you're going to have to stop making all of that sense. It doesn't apply to rich, western, White men.

Noriega got what he deserved (at least according to the propaganda from his CIA handler G.H.W.Bush)

Saddam got what he deserved (at least according to the propaganda from the son of his CIA handler G.H.W.Bush)

The Taliban got what they deserve (at least according to the propaganda from the son of his CIA handler G.H.W.Bush)

Bashir from Sudan has been indicted.

If you look at the following list, you'll see no one from Western (WASP) countries goes to jail for any of their crimes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Heads_of_State_who_were_later_imprisoned

So don't expect Bush to go to jail for an illegal invasion or Cheney for assassination squads or torture or Rumsfeld (maybe they'll make Rice take the fall for them - because Bush 41 never faced charges for selling drugs or invading the country of his drug dealing partner Noriega, and Reagan never faced charges for illegal arms to Iran, and Nixon never went to jail for Watergate and McCain will never have to answer for the "School Of The Americas", etc., etc. etc.

[GrahamInCanada]

If you'll look at the suggested list, it is an incomplete, unpretentious, eccentric list of rulers who have been imprisoned by their replacement regime. It accompanies similar lists of rulers who have been executed by their replacement regime.

It is not an exhaustive list, and does not claim to be, and it is not on topic, being prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

You look old enough in your picture to know of the war crimes trials against rich white men, from Germany to Bosnia.

Certainly, the audience here is not at all impressed with your ignorance.

[1dogs2]

Memo to GWB:

Better leave Canada off your list of countries to visit.

[Cyberoptic]

And Spain.

[OneTop]

Good stuff Canada.

One down, so many more to go.

[mikep]

Once again, a white nation finds a black man guilty of war crimes, but refuses to investigate or prosecute any white war criminals. If the Canadians are so interested in prosecuting war criminals, why don't they begin with their neighbor to the south? And the international criminal court wants to prosecute the leader of Sudan, but couldn't care less about Blair, Bush or any of the other white war criminals. Sorry, but I don't see any concern with war crimes here, just racism.

[CJWebber]

If the Canadians are so interested in prosecuting war criminals, why don't they begin with their neighbor to the south?

Maybe if Bush, Cheney or any of the others lived in Canada they would.

[Retrofuturistic]

That is simplistic. I don't think it has anything to do with race. White Nazi war criminals were prosecuted.

I think it has more to do with money. Bush, Cheney, and Blair have more money and more power. And the media is mostly owned by right-wing interests. There are many factors involved--- the educational level of the populace, the effect of religion, whether the members of the government have been compromised by money, etc.

[Paulo1]

War criminals are war criminals and if a Racist wants to prosecute one then I will cheer the racist. What those people did in Rwanda was a heinous crime and if Africa can't try them then I will not object when Canada does.

As for the Bush Cheney quip, you won't find me screaming if some African country wants to prosecute them, Looks like our President is caving on it.

[thecanadian]

FIRST OF ITS KIND Verdict - sets the future for War Crimes and Terrorists in
Canada! Finally! Guilty!

"Bruce Broomhall, an international criminal law professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal, said before the verdict that the case would add weight to the argument that Canada does not allow war criminals to reside in Canada."

Verdict today GUILTY