Abstract

Canada played a pivotal role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and it was the first country in the world to incorporate the Rome Statute in its domestic law when it passed the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) on 24 June 2000. The CAHWCA allows the application of universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of those persons responsible for “atrocity crimes” who are present in Canada. Yet, Canada’s record for the prosecution and conviction of those who are responsible for “atrocity crimes” under CAHWCA is far from enviable. Rather than taking a leadership role in the prosecution of those responsible for “atrocity crimes,” Canada has avoided doing so. Thus far, Canada has prosecuted only two atrocity crimes cases under universal jurisdiction: R. v. Munyaneza 2009 QCCS 2201 [2009] QJ No 4913 conviction and the denial of its appeal in R. v. Munyaneza 2201. (Quebec Court of Appeal, 7 May 2014); and an acquittal in the R. v. Mungwarere (Superior Court of Ontario, 5 July 2013) case. This article will analyze the ratio decidendi in these two precedent-setting cases that rest on the credibility and trustworthiness of the testimonial evidence presented. It also considers other factors that militate against the criminal investigation and prosecution of those who are allegedly responsible for atrocity crimes. This raises the fundamental question of whether it will be possible to “end impunity for international crimes” and advance international justice when States, such as Canada, are failing to prosecute and convict those who are responsible for atrocity crimes through universal jurisdiction. It calls on States to allocate adequate funding for criminal investigations and prosecutions under universal jurisdiction and to develop more rigorous, detailed, and refined methods for gathering and adducing credible and trustworthy testimonial evidence for the prosecution of cases involving these serious international crimes.

Keywords