Former Rwandan Army Major Bernard Ntuyahaga on the last day of his trial at a Brussels courthouse. Ntuyahaga was sentenced to 20 years for the murders of 10 United Nations peacekeepers at the start of the Rwandan Genocide. (Eric Vida/AFP PHOTO)
The Quebec Superior Court convicted Munyaneza in May for his horrendous crimes that were committed 15 years ago, in a country halfway around the world, in a small town few Canadians have heard of.
The trial was an important test case in Canada and globally, as Munyaneza was the first to be charged and convicted under Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act that came into force in 2000.
Justice André Denis found Munyaneza guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all seven charges—two counts of genocide, two counts of crimes against humanity, and three counts of war crimes—for his role in the planning and execution of a murderous campaign including rape and sexual violence against the Tutsi civilian population in the Rwandan town of Butare.
“Canada’s first experiment in applying the principle of universal jurisdiction to combat impunity for perpetrators of heinous crimes has been a remarkably positive one,” said Jayne Stoyles, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for International Justice.
“This verdict should pave the way for the prosecution of more of the alleged war criminals living in Canada.”
Richard Nsanzabaganwa, a Canadian citizen who was 25 years old at the time of the Rwandan genocide, narrowly escaped the slaughter, but continues to grieve the loss of his parents, two younger brothers, three half-brothers, and numerous relatives killed during the violence.
“Until this verdict, the opportunity under Canadian legislation to hold perpetrators to account for war crimes was just a theory,” said Nsanzabaganwa, a lawyer and chair of the Humura Canadian Association of Rwandan Genocide Survivors in Ottawa.
To those who say that Munyaneza should have been deported to face justice in Rwanda, Nsanzabaganwa responded: “Direct victims of the Rwandan genocide are living here, have become Canadian, and are therefore Canadian victims whose protection includes the prosecution of perpetrators. To protect them without prosecuting their tormentors living in Canada—as expressly provided for under Canada’s war crimes law—would not make sense.”
Another reason for trying Munyaneza in a Canadian court is that Rwanda’s court system is overburdened with genocide cases; a staggering 800,000 have been awaiting a hearing before traditional community courts since 2005. Referring his case to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is also not an option since that tribunal was set up to try only high-ranking genocide suspects and is wrapping up its heavy workload before its mandate expires next year.
But fugitives remain at large, and Nsanzabaganwa said countries such as Canada can play a critical role in bolstering the development of international justice by apprehending and trying suspected war criminals in its domestic courts so that there can be no impunity or safe haven for perpetrators of mass atrocities.
Nsanzabaganwa also believes that the trial result has far-reaching implications that extend beyond Rwandans to include other groups who have suffered from past atrocities.
Stoyles agrees that the verdict could have a very important and positive impact on other war crimes survivors dealing with the trauma of their experiences by giving them the message that their rights are protected by the Canadian justice system.
At the international level, the Munyaneza case has great significance in terms of strengthening the emerging system of international justice. It also lends more credibility to the Canadian government’s oft-stated assertion that it supports an end to impunity.
The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 was heralded as a remarkable triumph because it required government leaders supporting the treaty to agree that they themselves could be subject to criminal prosecution. Canada played a key role in this historic achievement.
The vision has always been that the ICC would handle only a handful of cases at a time against the highest level perpetrators while serving as a catalyst for war-crimes trials in national courts around the world.
Ideally the cases should be tried where the crimes occurred, but when this is not possible, the courts in other countries with the necessary legislation are empowered to take the cases.
“Rwandans in Butare have closely followed the Munyaneza trial and have been impressed that a foreign court—not an international court—would apply its criminal law to look into the specific facts of this case and call on witnesses living in Rwanda to judge the accused,” said Nsanzabaganwa.
Even more striking, he added, is that although Canada is not the first country to convict a perpetrator of the Rwandan genocide—Belgium, a former colonial master, has convicted and sentenced seven cases since 2001—it has done so despite having few historical links to Rwanda, lending confidence to Rwandans that the international community is working to end impunity.
Reports by the Government of Canada War Crimes Program indicate that there are some 1,500 alleged war criminals and human rights abusers from countries around the world currently living in Canada—often in the same communities as their former victims.
Nsanzabaganwa believes that the Canadian justice system is up to the task of addressing more of these cases and praised the competence demonstrated by the federal investigators.
“Such work may not go as fast as we would wish, but at the end of the day, they did a commendable and serious job in taking all the necessary steps required to ensure that they came up with consistent and tangible evidence,” he said.
One of the main problems, according to Stoyles, is that the federal budget for the War Crimes Program remains at the 1998 level. In addition, she cites that of the four federal departments that form the War Crimes Program, the two responsible for investigating and prosecuting war crimes receive less than 10 percent of this budget. Funding is mainly directed toward border enforcement activities aimed at keeping criminals out and deporting those who enter the country.
This means that instead of being held criminally responsible for past atrocities, war criminals continue to live in Canada without fear of punishment. On the other hand, people may be prevented from entering the country or deported on the basis of allegations to which they have little opportunity to respond, and may face persecution upon their return home.
“Even if the government were to bring a small fraction of the perpetrators to account, this would not only support the global effort to deter mass atrocities but give large numbers of survivors and their families the means to reclaim their violated rights,” said Stoyles.
“To be able to do so requires that significantly more resources be allocated to these cases by the government, and that there be support from all Canadians to end impunity for war criminals.”
Nanda Na Champassak is a volunteer with the Canadian Centre for International Justice. He is retired after working 27 years with the UN Refugee Agency.
