War crimes program evaluation

Where and by whom can war crimes be prosecuted? Prohibited acts include: Murder; Torture or other cruel or inhuman treatment including mutilation ; Taking hostages; Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population; Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historical monuments or hospitals; Pillage Rape and other forms of sexual violence Conscription or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

Unlawful deportation transfer or confinement of protected persons. Representing victims In the countries where it operates, TRIAL International documents war crimes and represents victims before national and international bodies, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.

Building cases against perpetrators TRIAL International collects and analyses information from victims, victims associations, witnesses and other reliable sources to develop dossiers on suspected perpetrators of war crimes.

Related Content Opinions. Democratic Republic of the Congo. Victims of the Algerian civil war still await justice Did Switzerland miss a historic opportunity to judge a potential war criminal? It has been ten years to the day since TR Denying wartime horrors is now a criminal offence in BiH Denial of genocide and other war crimes, that is likely to incite violence or hatred, is now prohibited by law in Bosnia Enrolled as a child, raped as a teenager: Nepalese victim seeks redress at the United N Uttara a pseudonym suffered first-hand from the effects of the civil war in Nepal.

Abducted by a Maoist guerilla, she Compensation to war crimes victims in BiH, a matter of willingness Tips regarding any individual designated by the War Crimes Rewards Program can be submitted confidentially here: www. Finally, information can be brought to the nearest U. Embassy or to any U. Government official. The U. Government will ensure complete confidentiality to individuals who provide information on war criminals.

Any person, including U. However, U. Are rewards paid for submitting information about any individual who has been accused by an international criminal tribunal? There is a consensus that more training opportunities are needed, that mechanisms for delivering training need to be more inclusive of the regions for IRCC and the CBSA , and that training programs for experienced staff are lacking for Justice.

The evaluation also found that tools, policies, and procedures are generally considered useful, but some, such as the Enforcement Manual and Tactical Guide, require updating. This represents a risk for the Program as significant expertise resides in individual staff members; it is also a lost opportunity to improve Program efficiency.

External outreach to increase awareness of the Program is important for several reasons, including obtaining the assistance of diaspora communities in identifying persons who have entered Canada, and who are believed to have committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. While the Program has continued to conduct outreach, the evaluation found that the Program has not followed through on suggestions to address identified gaps, such as developing a combined outreach plan among partners and conducting more outreach to groups in Canada, both of which were raised in the evaluation.

The evaluation findings indicate that, in general, the Program has effectively managed allegations. The processes for identifying and screening allegations, investigating allegations, and selecting and implementing remedies were all considered well managed by external stakeholders. Investigations were characterized as well organized and detailed. The mechanism for selecting and implementing remedies, the File Review Subcommittee of PCOC, has developed criteria for assessing files and assigning remedies, which is considered to generally work well and enable the Program to make the best decisions regarding how to direct its resources.

The evaluation identified some areas where the Program was experiencing challenges that affected its allegation management. In particular, the level of resources available has restricted the number of criminal investigations and prosecutions that can be undertaken.

Having a coordinated, multi-disciplinary program is considered by key informants to be a major benefit of the Canadian approach, yet at the same time sharing information among partners was cited as an area in need of improvement. Part of effective management of allegations is performance monitoring and reporting, and there is a clear consensus that the CAHWC Program needs to improve in this area.

Performance reports are considered by both internal and external stakeholders to be important for accountability as well as to build awareness of the Program, and yet the most recently published performance report is for — In addition to more timely performance reports, the Program could also consider tracking individual-level progress through the remedy ies.

The Program has prevented persons believed to have committed or been complicit in crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide from entering Canada. During the period covered by the evaluation, the number of visa applications assessed in overseas immigration offices for these crimes has averaged over 3, per fiscal year, and Canada has denied of these applicants entry.

In recent years, the number of visas assessed overseas that were denied entry where commission or complicity in crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide was at issue has dropped substantially. The evaluation does not have information on the reasons for this decline. Whether the Program has deterred other individuals involved in these crimes from seeking entry into Canada cannot be determined with any certainty. However, the screening processes, the denial of entry, and the use of other remedies, including prosecutions, are thought to send a message to individuals involved or complicit in crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide, that Canada will not provide a safe haven.

Performance data demonstrates that the Program employed all of the available remedies during the evaluation period.