相关规则
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 158. Prosecution of War Crimes
Section A. General
Canada’s Unit Guide (1990) notes that the 1949 Geneva Conventions “impose an obligation on all nations which have ratified them to search for and try all persons who committed or ordered to be committed grave breaches of the Conventions”. 
Canada, Unit Guide for the Geneva Conventions, Canadian Forces Publication C 318(4), 1990, § 702.1.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides:
Parties to the conflict shall take such measures as may be necessary to suppress and punish all breaches of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. If a breach amounts to a grave breach all persons responsible therefor, or having ordered such acts, shall, regardless of their nationality, be liable to be tried by any party to [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. They may also be handed over by the latter for trial by any other party to [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] able to prosecute effectively. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 10-6, § 52.
The manual also provides:
At the request of a party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted in a manner to be decided between the interested parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Geneva Conventions. If a violation is established, parties to the conflict must put an end to it and punish those responsible with the least possible delay. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 15-3, § 18.
The manual further states: “States have the obligation to repress grave breaches (i.e., ensure perpetrators are accused and tried) and to take measures necessary to suppress (i.e., bring to an end) all other violations.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 11.
In addition, the manual states:
37. The Criminal Code of Canada contains several provisions that allow Canadian courts to assume jurisdiction over and try alleged war criminals in a wide variety of circumstances.
38. Any state into whose hands a person who has allegedly committed a grave breach falls is entitled to institute criminal proceedings, even though that state was neutral during the conflict in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. Since 1945, it has been generally accepted that if a state is unwilling to institute its own proceedings, it may hand the person over to a claimant state on presentation of prima facie evidence that the alleged offender has committed the offence in question. …
43. The four Geneva Conventions obligate the parties thereto to enact such legislation as may be necessary to provide effective sanctions for persons committing or ordering any of the acts which would constitute grave breaches under the Conventions. They also provide that the parties will take the measures necessary to suppress any violation of the Conventions not amounting to grave breaches. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, pp. 16-5 and 16-6, §§ 37–38 and 43.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) states:
It is essential that any alleged breaches of these rules [of the Code of Conduct] and the Law of Armed Conflict be investigated rapidly in as impartial a manner as possible. An impartial investigation will not only assist in bringing violators to justice, thereby maintaining discipline, but will also provide the best opportunity to clear anyone who has not acted improperly. In most cases that investigation will be carried out by the military police or National Investigation Service. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 3.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs):
1014. Responsibility
1. The responsibility for the treatment of PWs rests upon the Detaining Power. Failure to properly care for PWs may make that power liable to pay compensation, while the individuals responsible for such ill-treatment or for allowing it to occur, are liable to be tried as war criminals.
1038. Breaches of PW Convention
1. Parties to the conflict shall take such measures as may be necessary to suppress and punish all breaches of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. If a breach amounts to a grave breach all persons responsible therefore, or having ordered such acts, shall, regardless of nationality, be liable to be tried by any party to [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. They may also be handed over by the latter for trial by any other party to [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] able to prosecute effectively. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1014 and 1038.
In its chapter entitled “Preventative and enforcement measures and the role of protecting powers”, the manual states:
At the request of a party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted in a manner to be decided between the interested parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Geneva Conventions. If a violation is established, parties to the conflict must put an end to it and punish those responsible with the least possible delay. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1508.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states:
1607. Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions
3. States have the obligation to repress grave breaches (i.e., ensure perpetrators are accused and tried) and to take measures necessary to suppress (i.e., bring to an end) all other violations.
1616. Canadian law
2. The Criminal Code of Canada contains several provisions that allow Canadian courts to assume jurisdiction over and try alleged war criminals in a wide variety of circumstances …
1617. International law
1. Any state into whose hands a person who has allegedly committed a grave breach falls is entitled to institute criminal proceedings, even though that state was neutral during the conflict in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. Since 1945, it has been generally accepted that if a state is unwilling to institute its own proceedings, it may hand the person over to a claimant state on presentation of prima facie evidence that the alleged offender has committed the offence in question.
6. The four Geneva Conventions obligate the parties thereto to enact such legislation as may be necessary to provide effective sanctions for persons committing or ordering any of the acts which would constitute grave breaches under the Conventions. They also provide that the parties will take the measures necessary to suppress any violation of the Conventions not amounting to grave breaches. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1607.3, 1616.2 and 1617.1 and 6.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
1725. Breaches of Protocol II
1. When [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] was adopted, states refused to make violations of its provisions regarding criminal offences. Certain nations were reluctant to allow other states to interfere in their internal affairs by way of trials for war crimes alleged to have taken place in their national territory.
2. Today, however, many provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] are nevertheless recognized under customary International Law as prohibitions that entail individual criminal responsibility when breaches are committed during internal armed conflicts.
3. Violations of many provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] committed by individual members of a party to an internal conflict are thus criminal offences under International Law. Such crimes may be tried by international tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1725.
Canada’s Prisoner of War Handling and Detainees Manual (2004) states:
All four [1949 Geneva Conventions] and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] impose an obligation on all parties to search for and bring to trial those who have committed any grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 103.1.
Canada’s Code of Conduct After Capture Manual (2004) states:
When it appears that violations of the LOAC or other international agreements or laws have been perpetrated against detainees or PWs [prisoners of war] whilst held by a detaining power, the recovery team shall also include MP [Military Police] investigators who will coordinate the collection of physical evidence and victim statements. MP assisted by appropriate legal advisors, shall coordinate and facilitate the participation of any other international investigative authority as may be required. 
Canada, The Code of Conduct After Capture for the Canadian Forces, B-GJ-005-110/FP-010, National Defence Headquarters, 28 October 2004, § 504.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states:
It is essential that any alleged breaches of these rules [of the Code of Conduct] and the Law of Armed Conflict be investigated rapidly in as impartial a manner as possible. An impartial investigation will not only assist in bringing violators to justice, thereby maintaining discipline, but will also provide the best opportunity to clear anyone who has not acted improperly. In most cases that investigation will be carried out by the military police or National Investigation Service. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 11, § 3.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides:
(1) Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach referred to in Article 50 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention I], Article 51 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention II], Article 130 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention III] Article 147 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] or Articles 11 or 85 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence and [is liable to punishment].
(2) Where a person is alleged to have committed an offence [in the meaning of the above], proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not the person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada and that 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. 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1) and (2).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that for offences within Canada “every person is guilty of an indictable offence who commits (a) genocide; (b) a crime against humanity; or (c) a war crime”. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Article 4.
The Act adds that for offences outside Canada, “every person who, either before or after coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada (a) genocide, (b) a crime against humanity, or (c) a war crime is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted”. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Article 6.
The Act states: “War crime means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that … constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts.” It further specifies that the crimes described in Articles 6, 7 and 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law”. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Article 4(3) and (4).
In the Brocklebank case in 1996, Canada’s Court Martial Appeal Court acquitted a Canadian soldier accused of torture and negligent performance of a military duty in respect of acts committed while serving as a member of the peacekeeping mission in Somalia. The Court held that there was no evidence that the soldier had formed the necessary mens rea to commit the offences charged. It was further held that no armed conflict existed in Somalia at the relevant time, nor were the Canadian forces to be considered as a party to the conflict, as they were engaged in a peacekeeping mission. As a result, the Court concluded that neither the 1949 Geneva Conventions nor the Canadian Unit Guide to the Geneva Conventions were applicable. 
Canada, Court Martial Appeal Court, Brocklebank case, Judgment, 2 April 1996; see also Court Martial Appeal Court, Brown case, Judgment, 6 January 1995, Boland case, Judgment, 16 May 1995, and Seward case, Judgment, 16 May 1995.
In 2009, in the Munyaneza case, Canada’s Superior Court of Québec found a Rwandan national who had been residing in Canada guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in committed Rwanda in 1994. The Court held:
II - TRIAL
[8] Mr. Munyaneza was charged under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (the “Act”), adopted by the Canadian Parliament in 2000 (S.C. 2000, c. 24). He is the first to be prosecuted under that legislation in Canada.
IV – THE LAW
3. THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES ACT (“the Act”)
3.1 History
[58] On June 29, 2000, the Act was assented to and placed in Chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada for the year 2000. Its complete title is the Act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
[59] The Act came into force on October 23, 2000.
[60] It is aimed at implementing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted on July 17, 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (the “Rome Statute”).
[65] In contrast to all Canadian laws that punish offences committed on Canadian territory, the Act provides that a person who has committed abroad a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime can be prosecuted in Canada if he or she resides here.
[66] One of the avowed purposes of the Act is to fight against the impunity of war criminals, like that which existed after the Second World War. 
Canada, Superior Court, Criminal Division, Province of Québec, Munyaneza case, Judgment, 22 May 2009, §§ 8, 58–60 and 65–66.
In 2013, in the Peters case, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Board rejected an immigration request on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Libya. The Board stated:
For the purposes of this hearing section[s] 6 and 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act are the relevant [ones] as they deal with offences committed outside of Canada and I will make reference to the relevant sections in respect of this case.
Subsection 6(1) indicates that every person who either before or after coming into force of this section commits outside of Canada, a) genocide, b) a crime against humanity, or c) [a] war crime, is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance with section 8.
I would also note that the Criminal Code of Canada has incorporated this definition into the legislation and it is an established principle in international [and] domestic law that people who have personally [committed] war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and other international crimes, would generally be held accountable for those crimes. 
Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, Peters case, Record of an Admissibility Hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 29 January 2013, pp. 7–8.
In 2013, in the Ezokola case, Canada’s Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the applicant’s exclusion from refugee protection on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, remitting the matter to the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Regarding implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute in Canada’s domestic legislation, the Court stated: “Canada is not only party to the [1998 ICC] Rome Statute, Parliament has implemented the treaty into domestic law through the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24.” 
Canada, Supreme Court, Ezokola case, Judgment and Reasons for Judgment, 19 July 2013, § 49.
According to the Report on the Practice of Canada, following the report of the Canadian Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in 1987, a section for war crimes was created in the Canadian Police and in the Ministry of Justice. A special unit was also established in the Ministry of Immigration to search for immigrants alleged to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. The report states that this reflects the belief held by the Canadian authorities in the necessity of setting up appropriate legal mechanisms to meet Canadian obligations regarding the search for war criminals on Canadian territory. 
Report on the Practice of Canada, 1998, Chapter 6.3.
In an annual report issued in 2003 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The IOG [Interdepartmental Operations Group] ensures that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Canadian citizens or persons present in Canada. Another of its purposes is to ensure that Canada complies with its international obligations. This includes the investigation, prosecution and extradition or surrender of war criminals, and the investigation of the most serious crimes against humanity, as well as cooperation with the international tribunals. In order to meet this objective, the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police], with the support of DOJ [Department of Justice], investigate allegations involving reprehensible acts that could lead to a possible criminal prosecution. CIC [Department of Citizenship and Immigration] pursues the application of remedies under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Citizenship Act, in cooperation with DOJ in all instances when these matters proceed to court. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 2.
In an annual report issued in 2004 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Under Canada’s War Crimes Program, war criminals and those responsible for crimes against humanity are not welcome in Canada, whether the crimes were committed during World War II or more recently …
The Canadian Government can choose from several approaches in dealing with war criminals, including investigation and criminal prosecution in Canada, extradition to foreign governments, surrender to international tribunals, denial of visas outside Canada or of admission to Canada, exclusion from refugee protection in Canada, revocation of citizenship, admissibility hearings and removal from Canada. The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police], with the support of DOJ [Department of Justice], investigates allegations of reprehensible acts that could lead to a possible criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] pursues remedies under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] refuses to issue immigrant or temporary resident visas to persons involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity. In the case of Canadian citizens, CIC can seek revocation of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, in cooperation with DOJ and the RCMP.  
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 2.
In an annual report issued in 2005 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Canada’s War Crimes Program upholds the government’s position that Canada is not a safe haven for anyone involved or complicit in crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide …
When a potential war criminal does manage to enter Canada or is found already living in Canada, the partners in the War Crimes Program have recourse to a number of enforcement measures, including … criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship.
Criminal investigation and prosecution
The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] War Crimes Section and the DOJ [Department of Justice] Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section work together to assess allegations referred for criminal investigation under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. In November 2004, the RCMP and the DOJ signed a Guiding Principles agreement in order to enhance the ability to conduct criminal investigations.
Modern war crimes
The RCMP is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal support from the DOJ. These investigations target individuals in Canada who are alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity or war crimes anywhere in the world. The RCMP receives allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity from a variety of sources including victims, witnesses, foreign governments, local ethnic communities, non-government organizations, open source information and media releases as well as allegations resulting from refugee, immigration and citizenship applications. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, pp. 1 and 3–4.
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Program, the Government of Canada stated:
If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. The partners have complementary roles in applying these remedies: criminal proceedings under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, on which the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] and the DOJ [Department of Justice] work closely together; enforcement under the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] led by the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency], including deportation and denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection; and citizenship revocation proceedings under the Citizenship Act handled by CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada]. The CBSA only deals with modern cases. The DOJ leads the development of World War II cases with the assistance of the RCMP. The DOJ also handles extradition and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act.
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship.
The RCMP is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal support from the DOJ, and targets individuals in Canada alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. The RCMP responds to allegations from witnesses, foreign governments, community groups, non-governmental organizations and open source information.
The DOJ and the RCMP review the results of these investigations to decide whether to pursue criminal prosecution. Under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the Attorney General of Canada must consent to charges before they are laid. The DOJ is responsible for leading the prosecutions under the Act.
In some cases, the partners determine that it would be more appropriate to pursue proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act, in which case the RCMP and the DOJ provide the results of their investigations to the CBSA or CIC.
The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes, including referrals from CIC/CBSA and complaints received from the public, other countries and international institutions, to determine whether individuals should be referred for criminal investigation. In order for an allegation to be added to the RCMP/DOJ inventory, the allegation must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated, and the necessary evidence must be able to be obtained in a reasonably uncomplicated and rapid fashion. As there are limited resources available for criminal investigation, the partners have redefined the test for inclusion in the RCMP/DOJ modern war crimes inventory in order to recognize the narrowed strategic focus for criminal investigation and prosecution – one of the most difficult and expensive remedies available under the program. The RCMP/DOJ inventory has been re-examined and the number of files has been reduced from 100 to approximately 60. The files removed from the RCMP/DOJ inventory will be dealt with by using remedies under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act. The need for the CBSA and/or CIC to investigate and finalize these files will increase processing times on all files, including those already in process.
The DOJ is responsible for handling allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to World War II. Investigations are pursued with the assistance of the RCMP. These investigations are complex, often taking several years to complete, and require the expertise of experienced lawyers, analysts, historians and RCMP officers. Historical research is used to build each case and to compile potential witness lists. Most witnesses live overseas, mainly in central and eastern Europe. The DOJ must first seek the cooperation of foreign countries before lawyers and RCMP officers can conduct interviews.
Following an investigation, counsel, historians and RCMP investigators determine the most appropriate course of proceedings, whether criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or civil proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act. With the passage of time, the age and availability of witnesses, and the challenges of gathering documentary evidence, most of the World War II-related cases will proceed by way of civil proceedings.
In World War II cases, the Government pursues legal remedies only in cases where there is evidence of direct involvement or complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. A person may be considered complicit if the person is aware of the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity and contributes directly or indirectly to their occurrence. Membership in an organization responsible for atrocities can establish complicity if the organization is one with a limited brutal purpose, such as a death squad. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2005–31 March 2006, pp. 1, 3, 10 and 11.
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
… Canada’s War Crimes Program has evolved over the years but its primary goal remains unchanged: to deny safe haven in Canada to war criminals, that is, individuals who may have been either directly involved or complicit in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found to be living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. Remedies include the following: criminal proceedings jointly administered by the DOJ [Department of Justice] and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) based on investigations conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; enforcement of the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] led by the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency], including denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection and deportation; citizenship revocation led by CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] and the DOJ; and extradition to foreign states and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act, led by the DOJ.
On the international stage, Canada plays a leadership role in global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals …
While the intent of the program is to allow partners to choose from a range of complementary remedies to pursue in order to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven to perpetrators of human and international rights violations, partners reserve criminal investigation and prosecution, the most expensive options, to a fraction of the cases. In turn, partners diligently seek more cost-effective immigration processes such as early detection and prevention of entry into Canada to ensure that war criminals do not enter the country.
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition to foreign states, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and the revocation of citizenship …
The RCMP is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal and research support from the DOJ, and targets individuals in Canada alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide before their arrival in Canada. The RCMP responds to allegations from witnesses, foreign governments, community groups, non-governmental organizations and open source information.
The DOJ and the RCMP review the results of these investigations to decide whether to pursue criminal prosecution. Under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the Attorney General of Canada must consent to charges before they are laid. The DOJ and the PPSC are responsible for bringing this matter forward under the Act.
In some cases, the partners determine that it would be more appropriate to pursue proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act, in which case the RCMP and the DOJ provide the results of their investigations to the CBSA or CIC.
The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes, including referrals from CIC and the CBSA and complaints received from the public, other countries and international institutions, to determine whether they should be referred for criminal investigation. In order for an allegation to be added to the RCMP/DOJ inventory, among other considerations, the allegation must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, and the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated and obtainable in a reasonable and rapid fashion …
The DOJ is continuing to handle allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to the Second World War, with the assistance of RCMP investigators.
In Second World War cases, the Government of Canada has several legal remedies at its disposal: criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or civil proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act. Given the passage of time, the age and availability of witnesses, and the challenges of gathering evidence, most of these cases proceed by way of civil proceedings. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 2, 4, 10 and 11.
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Introduction
… The primary goal of the War Crimes Program is to deny safe haven in Canada to war criminals or those suspected of being directly involved or complicit in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
Canada’s War Crimes Program – A Model of Collaboration
In the mid-1980s, the DOJ [Department of Justice] and the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] created specialized war crimes sections to investigate allegations related to war crimes and crimes against humanity from the Second World War. Subsequently, CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] established a war crimes unit of its own in the mid-1990s. In 1998, the War Crimes Program was created as an interdepartmental initiative between CIC, the DOJ and the RCMP, with the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] becoming a partner in the program upon its inception in December 2003. This collaboration marked a significant development in Canada’s battle against impunity and, coupled with the implementation of stronger legislation (the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), has advanced Canada as a global leader in the effort to hold war criminals accountable for their crimes.
The intent of the War Crimes Program is to provide a range of complementary remedies to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for perpetrators of human and international rights violations. Remedies are restricted by available funding. Criminal investigations and prosecution, widely seen as essential to international justice, are the most expensive options and only pursued in a fraction of the cases. Therefore partners diligently seek the more cost-effective remedies such as early detection and denial of entry into Canada. However, this does not resolve the issue of potential war criminals already residing in the country.
War Crimes Program Activities from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008
Canada uses a holistic approach in its domestic and international fight against impunity of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The Program has a broad arsenal of nine legislative remedies at its disposal, including the ability to prevent war criminals from entering Canada through the Denial of Visas Overseas and Denials at Port of Entry; and methods to deal with war criminals already in Canada, using Exclusion; Admissibility Hearings; Removals; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution. …
Remedies to Prevent Entry of War Criminals into Canada
Denial of Visas Overseas and Denials at Port of Entry
Remedies for War Criminals in Canada
The War Crimes Program may proceed with any of the seven remaining remedies to deal with war criminals who have entered Canada: Exclusion of refugee status in the context of a refugee claim; Admissibility Hearings; Removal; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution.
Revocation of Citizenship
CIC, DOJ and the RCMP work closely together in citizenship revocation cases and have several legal remedies at their disposal including criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and civil proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act. CIC has 18 active modern-day war crimes cases to review for possible revocation of citizenship …
The DOJ continues to handle allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to the Second World War …
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration commenced proceedings to revoke Mr. Michael Seifert’s citizenship in Federal Court on November 13, 2001 …
Extradition and Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements with other countries for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender of Canadians to international tribunals …
Italy requested the extradition of Michael Seifert, who was convicted in absentia by an Italian Military Tribunal in November 2000 for war crimes related to the Second World War. Mr. Seifert was surrendered to Italy in February 2008. Citizenship revocation proceedings against Mr. Seifert are ongoing.
Criminal Investigations and Prosecution
DOJ and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) cooperate in PPSC led war crimes prosecutions, based on major investigations conducted by the RCMP War Crimes Section under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
International missions: During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, 11 international missions were conducted by the RCMP War Crimes Section to investigate suspected war criminals residing in Canada. The investigators traveled to Rwanda, Serbia, Croatia, Germany, the Netherlands, Bosnia, Honduras and the United States to further their investigations. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp. 1–6.
In 2010, in its sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Canada stated:
Article 7
Prosecution of persons alleged to have committed torture
44. As noted in Canada’s Fifth Report, an interdepartmental group, the Program Coordinating Operations Committee (PCOC) (formerly entitled the Interdepartmental Operations Group), coordinates investigation of allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes under Canada’s War Crimes Program. The Committee ensures that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Canadian citizens or persons present in Canada. It also ensures that Canada complies with its international obligations.
45. A major activity of the PCOC has been the review of all crimes against humanity and war crimes files, determining the appropriate course of action, and channelling the files to the appropriate departmental authority for action. There are regular reviews to examine new files that have come to the attention of program partners. The PCOC meets on a monthly basis (or more often when required). Decisions are made by consensus and the chair rotates between the partner organizations.
46. If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found to be living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. Remedies include the following:
(a) Criminal proceedings that are based on investigations conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act …;
(b) Enforcement of the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act], including denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection and removal proceedings;
(c) Citizenship revocation;
(d) Extradition to foreign states and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act …
47. In order to be added to the inventory for criminal investigation, the allegation must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated, and the necessary evidence must be able to be obtained in a reasonable and rapid fashion. As there are resources available for criminal investigation, the partners have redefined the test for inclusion in the modern war crimes inventory in order to recognize the narrowed strategic focus for criminal investigation and prosecution – one of the most difficult and expensive remedies available under the program. The inventory for criminal investigation has been re-examined and the number of files has been reduced. The files removed from the inventory will be dealt with by using remedies under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act … The need for these files to be investigated and finalized will increase processing times on all files, including those already in process.
48. While the Committee has expressed some concern about the low number of prosecutions for terrorism and torture offences, the Government of Canada notes that prosecution is but one way in which Canada can impose sanctions on war criminals and those who have participated in crimes against humanity. The decision to utilize a particular remedy is carefully considered and is assessed in accordance with the Government’s policy that Canada not be a safe haven for war criminals. The decision to use one or more of these mechanisms is based on a number of factors which include: the different requirements of the courts in criminal and immigration/refugee cases to substantiate and verify evidence; the resources available to conduct the proceeding; and Canada’s obligations under international law.
49. There were two new prosecutions that were underway but not yet completed during the period covered by this report. On October 19, 2005, Désiré Munyaneza, a Rwandan national, was arrested regarding his alleged participation in the events in the region of Butare in Rwanda between April 1, 1994 and July 3, 1994. Mr. Munyaneza was charged with two counts of genocide, two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes pursuant to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. 
Canada, Sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 22 June 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/CAN/6, submitted 4 October 2010, §§ 44–49.
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Finally, Mr. President, accountability for those who violate international law by targeting civilian populations is fundamental. Accountability not only ensures that perpetrators are punished for their crimes, but it can also serve as an effective deterrent against future crimes. Canada has been a consistent supporter of the international courts and tribunals that strive to hold individuals to account and contribute to the prevention of such crimes … Strengthening accountability mechanisms in national jurisdictions is also key, as it is States that bear the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting violations. Recent convictions of high-ranking army officers for mass rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo are providing a useful example and Canada commends these efforts. Individuals responsible for these crimes must be brought to justice, including those implicated through command responsibility. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 10 May 2011.
In 2011, in an address to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
Canada has been vocal in condemning the targeting of civilians by the Qadhafi regime, and the impact of that regime’s actions on the hundreds of thousands of people who have been trapped in Libya or forced to flee its borders … In the face of this blatant disregard for both human rights and international law, Canada has demanded … that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice. We have been particularly disgusted by abhorrent reports [of] torture and sexual violence as weapons against the Libyan population. Such actions are international crimes and may be war crimes or crimes against humanity. Canada calls for a full and impartial investigation of these allegations so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice. 
Canada, House of Commons, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, 14 June 2011.
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Group of Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Although the Friends Group applauds the action taken by the Security Council so far in strengthening accountability for persistent perpetrators of grave violations against children, we call for further decisive action in three ways against such perpetrators … Third, we remain concerned with the accountability gap and call … upon national authorities and all parties concerned to take appropriate legal actions against persistent perpetrators. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Group of Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, 12 July 2011.
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including rape as a weapon of war and other acts of sexual violence, continue to occur at an alarming rate. Those who commit them must be held to account for their actions.
It is the primary responsibility of every state to investigate and prosecute those suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The recent conviction of four former military officers for their role in a massacre of civilians during the armed conflict in Guatemala – the first such conviction against military officers in that country – is an example of national accountability mechanisms at work. This underlines the need for states to fulfil their obligations to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of serious international crimes. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 9 November 2011.
In 2012, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Canada strongly supports the Security Council’s recognition of the need to take effective measures to prevent and respond to conflict-related sexual violence, including rape as a weapon of war. …
… Canada calls on the Security Council to increase pressure on States to hold perpetrators of sexual violence to account. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 23 February 2012.
In 2012, in its written replies to the issues raised by the Committee against Torture with regard to Canada’s sixth periodic report, Canada stated:
180. Canada’s War Crimes Program is based on the dual underlying purposes of ensuring that Canada will not become a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, as well as making an effective contribution to the global effort to reduce and eventually eliminate impunity for such crimes. A committee composed of members of each department of the War Crimes Program reviews and scrutinises all allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, including torture, to ensure compliance with existing and emerging international obligations to extradite or prosecute. In order for a case to be investigated and/or prosecuted through the criminal justice system, a combination of factors needs to be present:
- the allegation discloses personal involvement or command responsibility;
- the evidence pertaining to the allegation is corroborated; and
- the necessary evidence can be obtained in a reasonably uncomplicated and speedy fashion.
181. While the criminal investigation and prosecution of war crimes committed abroad is resource-intensive and will therefore only be pursued where the above criteria are satisfied, the ability to conduct criminal investigations and to prosecute is an important element of the War Crimes Program. In some cases, a criminal justice response is the most appropriate action and sends a strong message to Canadians and the international community that the Government of Canada does not tolerate impunity for war criminals or for persons who have committed crimes against humanity or genocide. War Crimes prosecutions, including prosecutions for torture, are closely managed by the PPSC. For example, a National co-ordinator monitors all such prosecutions, there is a special process for the assignment of prosecutors to such cases and special rules to ensure management and oversight apply.
182. Should a file not meet the selection criteria for being pursued through the criminal process, the War Crimes Program considers immigration measures, including the following:
- Preventing suspected war criminals from reaching Canada by refusing their immigrant, refugee or visitor applications abroad; and
- Detecting those who have managed to come to Canada and taking the necessary steps to: exclude them from the refugee determination process; prevent them from becoming Canadian citizens; revoke their citizenship should they be detected after acquiring that status; and, ultimately, remove these individuals from Canada.
183. In some cases it is more desirable to remove an individual suspected of having a role in war crimes and/or crimes against humanity through immigration enforcement means so that they may face justice in their country of citizenship. These instances arise when there has been a change in country conditions and there has been recognition of legal reform (e.g., independence of the judiciary) and capacity building within the justice system, and, as a result, these countries are capable of carrying out efficient and effective prosecutions of suspected criminals. 
Canada, Written replies by the Government of Canada to the Committee against Torture concerning the list of issues to be taken up in connection with the sixth periodic report of Canada, 2012, §§ 180–183.
In 2012, during the presentation of Canada’s sixth report to the Committee against Torture, the legal advisor of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada stated:
With respect to the obligation to prosecute crimes of torture and to assist other States in this regard, Canada is committed to the principle that it will not become a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, as well as to making an effective contribution to the global effort to strengthen accountability for such crimes. Canada has demonstrated its commitment in this regard through recent prosecutions of persons accused of having committed genocide and crimes against humanity in Rwanda. Canada also believes that, wherever possible, people accused of such terrible crimes should face justice in the countries in which the crimes occurred. In cases where this is not possible, international courts and tribunals and other efforts to hold perpetrators accountable for serious international crimes may be used. 
Canada, Statement by the legal advisor at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled “Presentation of Canada’s Sixth Report to the Committee against Torture”, 21 May 2012, p. 3.
In 2012, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Around the world, women and girls continue to be victims of sexual violence, including rape as a weapon of war. Hospitals and health care workers are subject to attacks. And people in desperate need are denied lifesaving humanitarian assistance. In such circumstances, UN Member States, and particularly the Security Council, must redouble their efforts to protect the most vulnerable, and ensure that those responsible for violations are brought to justice. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 25 June 2012.
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Madame President, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to thank the Rwandan Presidency for convening this open debate on conflict-related sexual violence.
Madame President, perpetrators of sexual violence must be held accountable. We support prosecution for those who have perpetrated or who have a command responsibility for these crimes. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 17 April 2013, p. 2.
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare as indicated by the Secretary-General in his annual report, and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights. The Friends encourage Member States to strengthen national accountability mechanisms and judicial capacities, including by developing child protection legislations that criminalize all grave violations against children. In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Primary responsibility for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict lies with national governments as well as with the leadership of non-state armed groups. Where these leaders fail to respond to sexual violence, or are party to the crimes, they must be held to account. Often however governments lack the capacity to respond adequately. Conflict significantly weakens national justice systems, resulting in a limited number of perpetrators facing justice. In such cases, member states could request the assistance of trained experts for investigations and prosecutions and to strengthen the capacity of local law enforcement. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 24 June 2013, p. 1.
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the minister counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Canada stated:
We condemn the targeting of journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and recall that media equipment and installations constitute civilian objects within international law as affirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006). We must continue to work to bring the perpetrators of such heinous acts to justice. Those who deliberately target civilians with violence must be held to account.  
Canada, Statement by the minister counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 17 July 2013.
In 2013, in a statement during the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated: “In the context of war, rape and serious sexual violence are war crimes. … The war criminals involved must be identified, pursued, prosecuted and punished.” 
Canada, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, 30 September 2013.
In 2013, in a statement during the Twelfth Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the ambassador of Canada stated: “We believe that those responsible for serious international crimes must be held to account, for which national and, as a last resort, international mechanisms could potentially play a role.” 
Canada, Statement by the ambassador of Canada during the Twelfth Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 21 November 2013, p. 2.