Соответствующая норма
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings
In an annual report issued in 2003 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated regarding the work of the War Crimes Section of its Department of Justice (DOJ):
DOJ’s War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the Tribunals and European governments. DOJ began working with European governments and police officials on a response to the issue of the movement of war criminals across borders and the sharing of best practices. The section is also actively involved in providing support to the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] in several on-going investigations in Europe and Africa. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 11.
In an annual report in 2004 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated regarding the work of the War Crimes Section of its Department of Justice (DOJ):
DOJ’s War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the International Tribunals and European governments by meeting frequently with their representatives.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service works with the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] and the Department of National Defence to support the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. IAG also reviews war crimes related requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 10.
In an annual report issued in 2005 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The no safe haven policy means that persons involved or complicit in crimes against humanity or war crimes are not welcome in Canada. The partners in the coordinated War Crimes Program are the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) …
Taking action against war crimes requires a great deal of international cooperation. Program partners take part in international conferences, training … and provide assistance to other countries and the international criminal tribunals.
The partners in the War Crimes Program have been internationally recognized for their cooperation, assistance and sharing of expertise in the development of other nations’ war crimes programs.
The RCMP provides assistance to foreign investigative agencies, which are not permitted to conduct criminal investigations in Canada, with regard to the rights of witnesses in Canada. In the past year, the RCMP War Crimes Section was responsible for the Canadian portion of a number of foreign investigations from countries such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Chile and Denmark.
CIC’s visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and the international criminal tribunals.
DOJ officials visited several foreign countries to discuss access for investigative purposes. The DOJ also hosted officials and responded to requests for cooperation from several countries including the United States, Denmark, Norway and Chile.
In June 2004, officials from Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom visited Canada for a joint working level meeting with Canada’s War Crimes Program partners to discuss issues of mutual concern, including screening methods, data exchange, caseloads, research, statistics and relations with international criminal tribunals.
In January 2005, officials of the United States Office of Special Investigations (OSI) visited Ottawa to meet with the partners in Canada’s War Crimes Program. The OSI has recently been granted legislative authority to investigate modern war crimes and crimes against humanity cases. The partners shared information on the coordinated war crimes program, legislation, investigative practices and prevention and enforcement activities.
Within the limits of the law, the CBSA shares intelligence and research material with the international criminal tribunals and like-minded countries, particularly the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other European countries. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, p. 5.
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The chief objective of the program is denial of safe haven in Canada to persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. At the same time, Canada contributes to the global fight against impunity for war criminals through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals.
CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals.
The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal support from the DOJ [Department of Justice], 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.
… RCMP investigators carry out witness interview trips under bilateral agreements with foreign governments and police officials.
The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes, including referrals from CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada]/CBSA and complaints received from the public, other countries and international institutions, to determine whether individuals should be referred for criminal investigation.
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.
Canada’s War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential component of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
Program partners provide assistance and information to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the International Assistance Group of the DOJ’s Federal Prosecution Service and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the International Criminal Court.
DOJ officials and RCMP investigators visited several foreign countries during the period covered by this report, including Honduras, Colombia, Croatia and Serbia, to discuss access for investigators and researchers and to develop Memoranda of Understanding on international cooperation. The RCMP provides assistance to foreign investigative agencies.
CIC visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and the various international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international conferences and meetings of international organizations discuss issues related to migration and human rights. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2005–2006, pp. 1, 2, 10, 11 and 13.
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
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. Because of its coordinated approach and its capacity to apply a range of legislative remedies, the War Crimes Program has become a model for other countries.
CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals …
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 [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal and research support from the DOJ [Department of Justice], 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.
… RCMP investigators carry out witness interview trips with the assistance of DOJ officials who liaise with representatives from foreign governments to secure cooperation in accordance with bilateral agreements.
The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes, including referrals from CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] 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 o 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 War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential part of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries enable the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
Program partners work closely with other countries on war crimes issues …
The partners provide assistance, information and legal and investigative support to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the ICC. All of the partners are represented in the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the DOJ’s International Assistance Group and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the ICC.
… The RCMP also provides assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies that travel to Canada to conduct investigations.
CIC visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international meetings are held to discuss issues related to migration and human rights.
Program partners recognize the benefits of international cooperation and outreach in the maintenance of its objective to fight impunity and the importance of spreading this message on a global scale. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 3, 4, 10 and 13.
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Introduction
Canada’s global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals have made Canada a leader on the international stage. The Canadian War Crimes Program’s collaborative approach and capacity to apply a range of legislative remedies has become a model for other countries.
Remedies for War Criminals in Canada
International missions: During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, 11 international missions were conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] 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 …
International Cooperation and Outreach
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Strong relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of research, logistics and investigative support.
The CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] War Crimes Section maintains a close working relationship with American, Australian and British war crimes units under the Four Country Conference (FCC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Respect to Investigations Relating to Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, signed in April 2007 by the governments of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. In November 2007, the CBSA War Crimes Section hosted a meeting at the Canadian High Commission in the United Kingdom with FCC partners to discuss information sharing issues.
CBSA researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals. During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, CBSA researchers at national headquarters responded to 3,239 requests for information (RFIs) on cases of alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity, an increase of 134 percent from 1,386 RFIs in 2006–2007 …
International conferences not only promote the exchange of information, but also improve the overall level of cooperation between countries … The RCMP also provides assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies that travel to Canada to conduct investigations. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp. 1–8.
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:
Canada’s contribution to the prevention of sexual violence in conflict situations include[s] $18.5 million dollars over the next five years to support victims, as well as contribute to investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators in eastern DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] where rape is used as a weapon of war. Canada has also supported training investigators of sexual violence who can be rapidly deployed to post-conflict areas around the world. 
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 an open debate on women, peace and security, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated: “Canada and others are working with partners in the field to … prevent and respond to sexual violence, and hold perpetrators to account. For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada assists survivors of sexual violence and brings those responsible to justice.” 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 18 October 2013.
Canada’s Extradition Act (1999), as amended to 2005, states:
EXTRADITABLE CONDUCT
3. (1) A person may be extradited from Canada in accordance with this Act and a relevant extradition agreement on the request of an extradition partner [a State or entity with which Canada is party to an extradition agreement, with which Canada has entered into a specific agreement or whose name appears in the schedule attached to the Extradition Act] for the purpose of prosecuting the person or imposing a sentence on – or enforcing a sentence imposed on – the person if
(a) subject to a relevant extradition agreement, the offence in respect of which the extradition is requested is punishable by the extradition partner, by imprisoning or otherwise depriving the person of their liberty for a maximum term of two years or more, or by a more severe punishment; and
(b) the conduct of the person, had it occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence that is punishable in Canada,
(i) in the case of a request based on a specific agreement, by imprisonment for a maximum term of five years or more, or by a more severe punishment, and
(ii) in any other case, by imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or more, or by a more severe punishment, subject to a relevant extradition agreement.
(2) For greater certainty, it is not relevant whether the conduct referred to in subsection (1) is named, defined or characterized by the extradition partner in the same way as it is in Canada.
(3) Subject to a relevant extradition agreement, the extradition of a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment or another deprivation of liberty may only be granted if the portion of the term remaining is at least six months long or a more severe punishment remains to be carried out.
5. A person may be extradited
(a) whether or not the conduct on which the extradition partner bases its request occurred in the territory over which it has jurisdiction; and
(b) whether or not Canada could exercise jurisdiction in similar circumstances.
6. Subject to a relevant extradition agreement, extradition may be granted under this Act whether the conduct or conviction in respect of which the extradition is requested occurred before or after this Act or the relevant extradition agreement or specific agreement came into force.
6.1 Despite any other Act or law, no person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court or by any international criminal tribunal that is established by resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations and whose name appears in the schedule [the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia], may claim immunity under common law or by statute from arrest or extradition under this Act.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
44. (1) The Minister [of Justice] shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or
(b) the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.
(2) The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is punishable by death under the laws that apply to the extradition partner.
46. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the prosecution of a person is barred by prescription or limitation under the law that applies to the extradition partner;
(b) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a military offence that is not also an offence under criminal law; …
47. The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the person would be entitled, if that person were tried in Canada, to be discharged under the laws of Canada because of a previous acquittal or conviction;
(b) the person was convicted in their absence and could not, on surrender, have the case reviewed;
(c) the person was less than eighteen years old at the time of the offence and the law that applies to them in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction is not consistent with the fundamental principles governing the Youth Criminal Justice Act;
(d) the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is the subject of criminal proceedings in Canada against the person; or
(e) none of the conduct on which the extradition partner bases its request occurred in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction.
47.1 The grounds for refusal set out in sections 44, 46 and 47 do not apply in the case of a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court.
ORDER OF SURRENDER
59. Subject to a relevant extradition agreement, the Minister may, if the request for extradition is based on more than one offence, order the surrender of a person for all the offences even if not all of them fulfil the requirements set out in section 3, if
(a) the person is being surrendered for at least one offence that fulfils the requirements set out in section 3; and
(b) all the offences relate to conduct that, had it occurred in Canada, would have constituted offences that are punishable under the laws of Canada.
CONSENT
71. (1) A person may, at any time after arrest or appearance, consent, in writing and before a judge, to being surrendered.
(4) When a person consents to being surrendered to the extradition partner, the following sections do not apply:
(b) section 44 (reasons for refusal). 
Canada, Extradition Act, 1999, as amended to 2005, Sections 3(1)–(3), 5–6.1, 44(1)–(2), 46(1)(a)–(b), 47–47.1, 59 and 71(1) and (4)(b).
In 2008, in the Ribic case, Canada’s Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal of a Canadian national who had been convicted of hostage-taking. Justice Cronk, who gave the leading judgment, stated:
[1] In 1995, Bosnia was in the throes of a bitter and prolonged civil war between Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. The war had a complicated and violent history. Throughout, a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force, assisted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was deployed in Bosnia.
[2] The appellant, Nicholas Nikola Ribic, is a Canadian citizen of Yugoslavian origin. At some point around 1995, he travelled to Bosnia and became involved with the Serbian war effort. On May 26, 1995, Ribic and several companions took three unarmed UN military observers hostage at gunpoint in the Bosnian town of Pale and used them as human shields by shackling them to Serbian ammunition bunkers that were the target of an ongoing NATO air strike. During the initial hostage-taking, Ribic repeatedly threatened to kill the hostages if the NATO bombing did not stop. The hostages were detained for almost three and a half weeks, until their negotiated release on June 18, 1995. …
[3] On February 17, 1999, Ribic was charged with four counts of hostage-taking in relation to two of the UN observers – one of whom is a Canadian citizen – under s. 279.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the Code). Ribic was then residing in Germany. He was extradited and brought to Canada to stand trial. Canada’s jurisdiction over the hostage-taking, assumed under s. 7(3.1) of the Code, was conceded by the defence.
[4] Ribic’s first trial began in October 2002. It ended on January 20, 2003 with the declaration of a mistrial. On June 12, 2005, following a second trial before a judge and jury, Ribic was convicted of two counts of hostage-taking and, on September 14, 2005, was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
[5] Ribic appeals his convictions. … I would dismiss the appeal. 
Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Ribic case, Judgment, 24 November 2008, §§ 1–5, per Cronk J.A.
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 … extradition or surrender of war criminals … as well as cooperation with the international tribunals. 
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:
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. 
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:
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 … extradition, criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship.
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis. The amendments also allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless and until the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, pp. 2 and 5.
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 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 [Canadian 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.
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2005–2006, pp. 1, 3 and 12.
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
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.
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 …
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 4 and 12.
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
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 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
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration commenced proceedings to revoke Mr. Michael Seifert’s citizenship in Federal Court on November 13, 2001. The hearing concluded on September 15, 2006, with the judge reserving his decision. On November 13, 2007, the Federal Court concluded that Mr. Seifert obtained entry to Canada and Canadian citizenship through misrepresentation and by knowingly concealing his place of birth, his association with the security police and his activities as a camp guard …
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. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp. 2–6.
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.
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. 
Canada, Sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 22 June 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/CAN/6, submitted 4 October 2010, §§ 44 and 46.
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:
51. The Government of Canada re-introduced Bill C-4, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act, on June 16, 2011, in order to combat the threat posed by human smuggling …
52. With the new bill, Canada will continue to uphold its obligations under the Convention, including the commitment not to employ torture as defined in Article 1 or to expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing the individual would be in danger of being subjected to torture in accordance with Article 3 [of the 1984 Convention against Torture] …
129. With respect to the extradition context, after a judge has determined that the evidence provided by the requesting state is sufficient to justify the committal of the person sought for extradition, the Minister of Justice must personally decide whether the person sought ought to be surrendered … Pursuant to section 44 of Extradition Act, the Minister of Justice must refuse surrender if the surrender would be unjust or oppressive or if the person sought will face a substantial risk of torture in the country seeking extradition. This test has been found by the Supreme Court of Canada to be sufficient to respect the principle of non-refoulement.
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. 
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, §§ 51–52, 129 and 180.
[footnote in original omitted]
In 2012, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issued a press release entitled “Minister Kenney applauds Alberta court ruling on accused war criminal Jorge Sosa”, which stated:
The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, issued the following statement:
The Government of Canada welcomes yesterday’s decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal upholding an extradition order against accused Guatemalan war criminal Jorge Sosa. The Court’s decision clears the way for Mr. Sosa to be extradited to face perjury charges in the United States concerning his past military activities in Guatemala.
In addition to the immigration charges he faces in the U.S., Jorge Sosa is also wanted for war crimes in his native Guatemala, where he has been accused of participating in one of the bloodiest events of the brutal Guatemalan civil war – the notorious massacre of more than 200 villagers at Dos Erres in 1982. Mr. Sosa has evaded justice for far too long. 
Canada, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, “Minister Kenney applauds Alberta court ruling on accused war criminal Jorge Sosa”, Press Release, 9 August 2012.
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
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 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 [Citizenship and Immigration Canada], DOJ [Department of Justice] and the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] 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 [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] or the Citizenship Act. CIC has 18 active modern-day war crimes cases to review for possible revocation of citizenship and one of the cases, Mr. Branko Rogan, is presently before the Federal Court.
The DOJ continues to handle allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to the Second World War. During the fiscal year 2007– 2008, 17 Second World War files were under active investigation, 145 initial allegations related to the Second World War were being examined and 74 files have been concluded because the individuals never entered Canada, have left Canada, have since passed away or because there was lack of evidence to justify pursuing legal action.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration commenced proceedings to revoke Mr. Michael Seifert’s citizenship in Federal Court on November 13, 2001. The hearing concluded on September 15, 2006, with the judge reserving his decision. On November 13, 2007, the Federal Court concluded that Mr. Seifert obtained entry to Canada and Canadian citizenship through misrepresentation and by knowingly concealing his place of birth, his association with the security police and his activities as a camp guard. On May 24, 2007, the Government of Canada announced that the Governor in Council had revoked Mr. Helmut Oberlander’s citizenship. Mr. Oberlander has commenced a judicial review application of this decision before the Federal Court. The Government of Canada also announced the revocation of citizenship of Mr. Jacob Fast on the same day. Due to the passage of time, the age and availability of witnesses and the challenges of gathering evidence, criminal prosecution is no longer a viable remedy for Second World War cases.
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. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp 2–6.
[footnote in original omitted]
Canada’s Extradition Act (1999), as amended to 2005, states:
46. (1) The Minister [of Justice] shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(b) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a military offence that is not also an offence under criminal law; …
(c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character.
(2) For the purpose of subparagraph (1)(c), conduct that constitutes an offence mentioned in a multilateral extradition agreement for which Canada, as a party, is obliged to extradite the person or submit the matter to its appropriate authority for prosecution does not constitute a political offence or an offence of a political character. The following conduct also does not constitute a political offence or an offence of a political character:
(a) murder or manslaughter;
(b) inflicting serious bodily harm;
(c) sexual assault;
(d) kidnapping, abduction, hostage-taking or extortion;
(e) using explosives, incendiaries, devices or substances in circumstances in which human life is likely to be endangered or serious bodily harm or substantial property damage is likely to be caused; and
(f) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in, counselling, aiding or abetting another person to engage in, or being an accessory after the fact in relation to, the conduct referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e).
47.1 The grounds for refusal set out in section … 46 … do not apply in the case of a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Extradition Act, 1999, as amended to 2005, Sections 46(1)(b)–(c), 46(2) and 47.1.
In 2000, Canada enacted the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, criminalizing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and making consequential amendments to other Canadian laws to implement the 1998 ICC Statute in domestic law. In particular, the Act contains sections codifying offences against the administration of justice of the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000.
Canada’s Extradition Act (1999), as amended to 2005, states:
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
44. (1) The Minister [of Justice] shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or
(b) the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.
(2) The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is punishable by death under the laws that apply to the extradition partner.
46. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the prosecution of a person is barred by prescription or limitation under the law that applies to the extradition partner;
(b) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a military offence that is not also an offence under criminal law; …
(c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character.
47. The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the person would be entitled, if that person were tried in Canada, to be discharged under the laws of Canada because of a previous acquittal or conviction;
(b) the person was convicted in their absence and could not, on surrender, have the case reviewed;
(c) the person was less than eighteen years old at the time of the offence and the law that applies to them in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction is not consistent with the fundamental principles governing the Youth Criminal Justice Act;
(d) the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is the subject of criminal proceedings in Canada against the person; or
(e) none of the conduct on which the extradition partner bases its request occurred in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction.
47.1 The grounds for refusal set out in sections 44, 46 and 47 do not apply in the case of a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Extradition Act, 1999, as amended to 2005, Sections 44, 46(1) and 47–47.1.
In an annual report issued in 2003 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Apprehending and dealing appropriately with persons who have allegedly committed or are complicit in crimes against humanity or war crimes requires a great deal of international effort and cooperation. To that end, Canada supports the work of many international bodies including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) and the hybrid Special Court for Sierra Leone. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 2.
On the support provided by Canada’s Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) to international criminal tribunals, the annual report stated:
CIC’s extensive experience in screening for modern war crimes makes the department a valuable partner to the International Tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). CIC is a participant in the Government of Canada’s activities to support international tribunal prosecutions and investigations. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 6.
With regard to the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the annual report stated:
International criminal investigations are a two-way street; the RCMP War Crimes Section also provides assistance to foreign police and international law enforcement authorities such as the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 9.
The annual report further stated:
DOJ’s [Department of Justice’s] War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the Tribunals and European governments. DOJ began working with European governments and police officials on a response to the issue of the movement of war criminals across borders and the sharing of best practices. The section is also actively involved in providing support to the RCMP in several on-going investigations in Europe and Africa.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service assists the RCMP and the Department of National Defence in their support to the investigations and prosecutions of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. Additionally, IAG reviews requests for mutual legal assistance under Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act from foreign governments in the investigation and prosecution of modern day war crimes. Such assistance is also available to the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 11.
In 2003, in a submission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the case of The Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović and Dragoljub Ojdanić (Case No. IT-99-37-PT), Canada stated:
The Government of Canada has been and remains a strong supporter of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“The Tribunal”). Canada has cooperated consistently with the Tribunal and fully accepts the need for a robust, independent Tribunal with the power necessary to fulfill the mandate accorded to it. In furtherance of this mandate, Canada recognizes and supports the power of the Tribunal to issue orders to States for the production of evidence. 
Canada, Submission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, February 2003, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2003, volume XLI, p. 451.
In an annual report issued in 2004 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated regarding the work of three government departments involved in the Program:
1. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA):
CBSA’s extensive experience in screening for modern war crimes makes the agency a valuable partner to the International Tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda. CBSA continues to participate in the Government of Canada’s activities to support international tribunal prosecutions and investigations. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 4.
2. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
International criminal investigations are a two-way street. The RCMP War Crimes Section provides assistance to foreign police and international law enforcement authorities such as the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 8.
3. Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ’s War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the International Tribunals and European governments by meeting frequently with their representatives.
DOJ’s War Crimes Section is also actively involved in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Working Group which examines the tribunal’s requests for information or access to witnesses located in Canada.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service works with the RCMP and the Department of National Defence to support the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. IAG also reviews war crimes related requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, and from the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 10.
In 2005, in a statement before the UN Commission on Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sudan, made on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the representative of Canada stated:
Australia, Canada and New Zealand condemn the ongoing grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur, Sudan which are having a huge impact on the civilian population in that part of the country.
The international community is acting upon its responsibility to protect, as witnessed by the recent decisions of the United Nations Security Council. We are particularly pleased that the UN Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court in accordance with the recommendation of the International Commission of Inquiry. As we have said many times, this referral represents the best option for ensuring timely accountability for these serious international crimes and for deterring further atrocities not only in Darfur. The International Criminal Court was established precisely to fulfill these dual roles – to ensure accountability for, as well as to deter, the commission of the most serious international crimes.
These promising initial actions will need support if they are to succeed. We encourage all members of the international community to offer all the necessary support to the peace process, human rights missions, international agencies and humanitarian organizations as well as to the International Criminal Court.
We call on the Government of Sudan, all parties to the conflict and the international community to cooperate fully with the Mission of the African Union, the United Nations Mission in Sudan, the United Nations and all its agencies, humanitarian organizations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and all its special procedures, as well as the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Statement by the representative of Canada before the UN Commission on Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sudan, made on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, 2005, pp. 1–2.
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 partners provide assistance and information to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the ICTY and ICTR, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada.
They work with the International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The IAG also reviews war crimes-related requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, the international tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The partners have established long-standing reciprocal relationships with the international tribunals, which provide logistical support and enable the sharing of resources and information. During the past year, the ICTY provided much needed assistance to RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] investigative teams who travelled to the former Yugoslavia and other locations to conduct their work. An RCMP team visited Rwanda to provide training on forensic interviewing to members of the ICTR investigative staff and prosecutors from the Rwandan government. In addition, an RCMP war crimes investigator met with representatives of the ICC in The Hague for an exchange of information on investigations in Africa.
In 2004–2005, DOJ [Department of Justice] officials visited the ICTY, the ICTR, and the ICC to conduct research and to discuss information sharing, access to witnesses and general cooperation. The DOJ also received members of the ICTR, the ICC and the Sierra Leone Special Court to further these discussions.
Within the limits of the law, the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] shares intelligence and research material with the international criminal tribunals and like-minded countries, particularly the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other European countries. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, p. 5.
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The chief objective of the program is denial of safe haven in Canada to persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. At the same time, Canada contributes to the global fight against impunity for war criminals through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals …
CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals.
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 …
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals …
Canada’s War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential component of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
Program partners provide assistance and information to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the International Assistance Group of the DOJ’s [Department of Justice’s] Federal Prosecution Service and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the International Criminal Court.
DOJ officials and RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] investigators visited several foreign countries during the period covered by this report, including Honduras, Colombia, Croatia and Serbia, to discuss access for investigators and researchers and to develop Memoranda of Understanding on international cooperation. The RCMP provides assistance to foreign investigative agencies.
CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and the various international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international conferences and meetings of international organizations discuss issues related to migration and human rights. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2005–2006, pp. 1, 2, 3, 12 and 13.
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
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 [Department of Justice]; 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. Because of its coordinated approach and its capacity to apply a range of legislative remedies, the War Crimes Program has become a model for other countries.
CBSA researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals …
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 …
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed.
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential part of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries enable the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
The partners provide assistance, information and legal and investigative support to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the ICC. All of the partners are represented in the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the DOJ’s International Assistance Group and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the ICC.
The RCMP has a close reciprocal relationship with the international criminal tribunals sharing information and resources. During the reporting period, ICTR justice officials visited Canada and the ICTY assisted RCMP investigators working in the former Yugoslavia. DOJ counsel provided important legal support to the international criminal tribunals in Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Rwanda. Canada is the fourth largest contributor to the SCSL.
CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international meetings are held to discuss issues related to migration and human rights.
Program partners recognize the benefits of international cooperation and outreach in the maintenance of its objective to fight impunity and the importance of spreading this message on a global scale. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 3, 4, 12 and 13.
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Introduction
Canada’s global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals have made Canada a leader on the international stage …
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 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.
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 …
International Cooperation and Outreach
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Strong relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of research, logistics and investigative support.
The War Crimes Program partners provide assistance and information to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. The International Assistance Group of the DOJ [Department of Justice] reviews requests related to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the ICC.
The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] War Crimes Section has a close reciprocal relationship with the international criminal tribunals, sharing information and resources. During the reporting period, ICTR justice officials visited Canada and the ICTY assisted RCMP investigators working in the former Yugoslavia.
CBSA researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals. During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers at national headquarters responded to 3,239 requests for information (RFIs) on cases of alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity, an increase of 134 percent from 1,386 RFIs in 2006–2007 …
International conferences not only promote the exchange of information, but also improve the overall level of cooperation between countries. The RCMP (investigators) and the DOJ (counsel and analysts) attended an ICC conference in December 2007 in the Hague focusing on war crimes investigation tools and methods …
Conclusion
Canada’s War Crimes Program has evolved since its inception. Its collaborative inter-departmental approach, international cooperation and outreach initiatives have earned acclaim in the global community. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp 1–8.
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
On February 26, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1970 [2011], on the situation in Libya.
Canada welcomes this landmark decision and strongly supports the key provisions of that resolution.
Canada was among the first to call for the referral of the situation in Libya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to help ensure that those responsible for ordering and carrying out those atrocities are held accountable. We are pleased that the Security Council has taken action on this.
My government demands that the Libyan regime comply with all aspects of this resolution immediately …
We call all states to join us in rendering full cooperation to the Court. 
Canada, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the UN Human Rights Council, 28 February 2011.
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:
[A]ccountability 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. The recent decision by the Security Council to refer the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court has sent a clear message that there will be consequences for committing serious international crimes – including for those who have ordered and incited illegal attacks on civilian populations. 
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 the regime halt its attacks against its own people and 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 was among the first to call for the UN Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. 
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 a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
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 fulfill their obligations to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of serious international crimes, and where appropriate, cooperate with international institutions to ensure that those responsible face justice. 
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, 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 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 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 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.
It is disturbing that some arrest warrants are not being executed. Canada encourages all states to abide by their international commitments. 
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.