tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post1359360200280609791..comments2024-03-06T10:16:40.696+00:00Comments on PhD studies in human rights: Rwandan Extradition Authorized by European Court of Human RightsWilliam A. Schabashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552332133145290879noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-41642573647524549512012-01-06T00:41:54.036+00:002012-01-06T00:41:54.036+00:00There are some interesting developments in Canada ...There are some interesting developments in Canada in the Léon Mugesera case that are not exactly innocently happening a few weeks after the ECHR and ICTR decisions on transfers!<br /><br />After 20 years in Canada, 15 years before the courts and 7 years after a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada had confirmed his deportation, Mr. Mugesera, a Quebec City resident, has now received his order of deportation to Rwanda. Judicial review ongoing...<br /><br />For my quick 10cents on this news that came out 31 December 2011, please read my blog entry (thanks to Rub Currie for hosting me!)<br /><br />"Mugesera: Canada's First Faltering Steps in the Debate Over Transferring Genocide Suspects to Rwanda":<br /><br />http://rjcurrie.typepad.com/international-and-transna/2012/01/mugesera-canadas-first-faltering-steps-in-the-debate-over-transferring-genocide-suspects-to-rwanda.htmlFannie Lafontainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18169972141475189945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-63652143898837563152011-11-01T09:03:08.857+00:002011-11-01T09:03:08.857+00:00In view of the compliant at the ECtHR, the Swedish...In view of the compliant at the ECtHR, the Swedish authoritier have postponed the transfer to Rwanda. However, the decision of the ECtHR was to late.<br /><br />The suspect was released from Swedish custody in July 2011 because the Swedish Supreme Court could find no justification for keeping a person detained for such a long period (2008-2011). The suspect has now left Sweden.Mark Klamberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11882410684961184112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-39825029897726890842011-10-28T19:40:38.743+01:002011-10-28T19:40:38.743+01:00This decision is very disappointing, if not entire...This decision is very disappointing, if not entirely unpredictable. As Prof. Schabas notes, any other finding of the ECtHR on art. 6 would have been unprecedented. Despite some improvements, Rwanda's justice system still has a long way to go. <br /><br />Pros. Schabas is wrong in arguing that the 2008 referral decisions of the ICTR were "overly harsh and, ultimately, wrongly decided." And for it to be said that these decisions had "a terrible influence" in Europe is, in my view, to miss the point spectacularly. The law was applied and the evidence was scrutinised in numerous national courts; time after time the Rwandan justice system was found wanting. <br /><br />For example, the UK High Court decision in <i>Brown (aka Bajinja) et al.</i> considered the evidence itself, dispassionately and arguably in far greater detail than ever did the ICTR, and arrived at the same conclusion that there would be no fair trial in Rwanda. Indeed, the High Court went further than the ICTR's Appeals Chamber and accepted evidence of executive interference in the judiciary in Rwanda - a concession that Pros. Schabas himself was obliged to make in the context of the high-profile trial of the former President of Rwanda, Pasteur Bizimungu.<br /><br />"Poor and developing" countries should not be held to a lower standard when it comes to fairly trying individuals charged with the very most serious of crimes. Art. 14 of the ICCPR imposes <i>minimum</i> standards applicable to all signatory states. <br /><br />And to answer the rhetorical question: Yes, many (if not all) trials in the past in "rich countries" <i>were</i> unfair when assessed against today's more enlightened and fairer standards. Terrible miscarriages of justice <i>did</i> occur in "rich countries" as a direct result. We should strive to ensure that these risks are minimised in the future, irrespective of the country in which any given trial takes place, by insisting on universal minimum and, where necessary, evolving standards.<br /><br />Alarmingly, the ICTR earlier this year in the <i>Uwinkindi</i> case (in which I have to declare an interest) woefully failed to apply the correct test and arrived at an extremely dangerous decision as a result. One can only hope that the Appeals Chamber rediscovers the right path.Iain Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338382747156704417noreply@blogger.com