Canadian authorities have delayed the deportation of a Rwandan accused of helping to incite the 1994 genocide until a UN torture committee decides on a claim that he faces persecution back home. At the cost of breaching the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), Canadian officials said Mugesera must be extradited “as soon as possible,” adding “war criminals will find no haven on our shores.”

By Josephine Uwineza, Hilversum

The Quebec Superior Court ordered Ottawa not to deport Leon Mugesera until January 20 after a dramatic 24-hours in the case of a man whose infamous 1992 speech is alleged to have played a major role in inciting the genocide, during which radical ethnic Hutus killed as many as 800,000 Tutsis. A federal Canadian court had rejected Leon Mugesera's last-ditch appeal on Wednesday, at the end of a 15-year legal battle, and ordered his deportation to Rwanda on Thursday.

But a family statement issued through the office of Mugesera's lawyer said the alleged war criminal collapsed following the decision and was rushed to a Quebec City hospital on Wednesday evening. "Papa is in critical condition," the statement said. "We implore Canada to respect its international obligations, as the (United Nations) High Commission for Human Rights demanded on Jan. 11, 2012."

The federal court on Wednesday rejected Mugesera's appeal to revisit a 2005 high court ruling upholding a 1996 decision to expel him based on evidence that he likely committed a war crime. Mugesera's lawyer argued that Canada should not expel Mugesera, saying he would face political persecution in Rwanda.

No Torture, Promise!
The Canadian federal court said Ottawa had received assurances from Kigali that Mugesera would not be mistreated and would be given a fair trial, noting that Rwanda abolished the death penalty in 2007.

However, “Diplomatic guarantees from a government that systematically violates the rights of people is worth nothing,” said Ms. Doyon, Mugesera’s lawyer, referring to Federal Court Justice Michel M.J. Shore’s ruling, which pointed out Rwanda did away with the death penalty in 2007 and provided assurances that Mugesera would not be tortured. Ms Doyon called Shore’s judgment a “parody of the principles of law,” vowing to continue her fight for a judicial review of Mugesera’s case before the Federal Court.

Mugesera’s is the only Rwandan extradition case in which the UN Torture Committee was asked to intervene (by the defendant himself).

Courting human rights
In the case of Ahorugeze v. Sweden, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the Rwandan judicial system has improved over the last few years. Two judges found that a deportation is neither in breach of Article 3, which prohibits torture and “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” nor Article 6, stipulating a detailed right to a fair trial – as provided for in the ECHR.

However, the ECHR decision pertains solely to the case of Ahorugeze. Future cases, where suspects request the ECHR to review a positive extradition request, may have a different outcome, including those where judges are not convinced that Rwandan authorities have the capacity to bring extradited suspects to trial within a reasonable timeframe.

No way Norway
Rwandan genocide suspect Charles Bandora’s appeal against the Norwegian District Court’s order to extradite him in July was rejected by the Supreme Court in Oslo on November 21, 2011.

The Nowegian decision shows that Rwanda’s judicial system is being deemed more trustworthy internationally, said Dr. Deogene Bideri of the National Commission for the Fight Against Genocide. "We believe that many more cases will be referred to Rwanda in the future," he added.

Defence lawyer Harald Stabell, said there is still hope for his client as he intends to apply to the European Court of Human Rights.

Rwanda: suddenly competent
ICTR Judges in Arusha referred Jean Uwinkindi’s case to Rwanda’s courts, stating its past concerns about referring cases to the country’s judiciary--including the availability of witnesses and their protection--had been addressed to some degree in the intervening period.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) will monitor Uwinkindi’s trial in Rwanda and will report to the ICTR President on any potential issues that may arise throughout the course of the proceedings.

The ICTR is the only court that has provided some sort of a guarantee of a fair trial.