War criminals are
not wanted in
Canada
Canada welcomes immigrants to
Canada because they can add to the fabric of Canada but war criminals add
nothing but bad memories of events that took place in the past that still
brings sorrow to the victims still alive trying to move on in their lives.
Their pain increases when they realize that the perpetrators of the crimes
against them and their families are living the good life in Canada and in other
countries. Canadians don’t want war
criminals to live a good life in Canada.
Jean Berchmans Habinshuti was born in 1955 in Rwanda
and is a citizen of Rwanda. He came to Canada in August 2011, and made a claim
for refugee protection. Meanwhile, his wife and children had previously been
admitted into Canada as a refugee.
Canada prides itself in giving refugee
protection to those of other countries whom they are fleeing from because of the
possibilities that they will be harmed if they remain in the countries they
were living in. But sometimes, the Canadian Immigration authorities aren`t
absolutely convinced that some refugee applicants are legitimate refugees. Just
because there are suspicions at the point of entry about their legitimacy, they
are not immediately turned away. They are entitled to a hearing and that is
what Habinshuti got.
First, a brief history of the Rwanda Genocide. From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority
in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000
people, mostly of the Tutsi minority. Begun by extreme Hutu nationalists in the
capital of Kigali, the genocide spread throughout the country with staggering
speed and brutality. Ordinary citizens were incited by local officials and the
Hutu government to take up arms against their neighbors. By the time the
Tutsi-led Rwandese Patriotic Front gained control of the country through a
military offensive in early July, Eight hundred thousand or more Rwandan Tutsi were
murdered and many more displaced from their homes. The RPF victory created 2
million more refugees (mainly Hutus) from Rwanda, exacerbating what had already
become a full-blown humanitarian crisis.
In October 1994,
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), located in Tanzania, was
established as an extension of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague, the first international tribunal since
the Nuremburg Trials of 1945-46 and the first with the mandate to prosecute the
crime of genocide. In 1995, the ICTR began indicting and trying a number of
higher-ranking Rwanda officials for their role in the Rwandan genocide; the
process was made more difficult because the whereabouts of many suspects were
unknown. The trials continued over the next decade and a half, including the
2008 conviction of three former senior Rwandan defense and military officials
for organizing the genocide.
Habinshuti is an educated man and he served as a member of the Rwanda
parliament from 1999 to 2003. He
was initially hired by the newly formed Ministry of Information as Head of
Division, in charge of relations with press attachés in other Ministries. As it
appears from the his Curriculum Vitae, he was responsible for coordinating and
following up on activities of press attachés in various Ministries, activities
which are consistent with those of a Division Head. According to his résumé,
the respondent was also responsible for preparing and organizing interviews and
press conferences given by the Prime Minister. He held this position for one
year, from 1992 to 1993. According to his testimony at his hearing, he was
approached by Ms. Uwilingiyimana and asked if she could propose him as a
candidate. He testified that Ms. Uwilingiyimana (Minister of Education) did all
the necessary paperwork so that he could be assigned to the Ministry of
Information. Later when Ms. Uwilingiyimana became the new Prime Minister, Habinshuti was subsequently hired by Ms. Uwilingiyimana herself in July 1993 to be
her private secretary.
With regards to his
position as private secretary, Habinshuti sought to minimize his
duties, claiming that he handled mail but never opened any confidential
correspondence, claimed he kept the Prime Minister’s agenda but never managed
it and claimed that he never advised the Prime Minister in any way. He described his duties as that of a mere clerk.
The Canadian Immigration tribunal
did not deem it credible that these were merely hypothetical duties
corresponding to a generic job description. On the contrary, the tribunal
believed that a Habinshuti actually carried out the
duties which correspond to those of a senior executive assistant or advisor
rather than those of a mere clerk. I am inclined to agree.
The official of the Minister
of Immigration submited that Habinshuti’s résumé indicates that he
was rising in the chain of command and submited that he attained increasing
responsibilities as a result of his personal connection to the Prime Minister.
Habinshuti returned to a
position in the upper echelons of Rwandan public service after the event of April
1994. The tribunal notes that there was a gap in his résumé from April 1994
until October 1994 due to the genocide which occurred (April to July 1994) and
which led to a collapse of the government and disrupted normal activities in
Rwanda.
As head of Social Affairs
in the office of the Prime Minister, Habinshuti’s duties included reporting to
the Prime Minister at the National level in various activities and also advising
the Prime Minister on various social issues. He was also involved in
co-ordinating and controlling the activities of the Division.
In his testimony, he tended
to downplay the importance of his roles and the responsibilities which he had.
The tribunal noted that there were inconsistencies between the Habinshuti’s
résumé and his testimony which the he attempted to explain was due to the
difference between hypothetical job descriptions which correspond to official
postings and the his actual duties. According to the him, his actual duties did
not necessarily correspond to his job descriptions.
He also claimed that
notwithstanding his numerous promotions spanning a decade, his salary remained
consistent. According to him, from the time he was a language teacher and until
he became a private secretary, he indicated that he was earning 21,000 Rwandan
Francs per month. It is simply implausible that as his tasks became more
complex, his salary remained the same and is likelier an attempt by him to
downplay the increasing importance of the positions which he held in the
Rwandan government during the time of the genocide was taking place.
Notwithstanding which
duties Habinshuti did or did not accomplish, he was involved in positions which
gave him the authority to carry out the tasks enumerated on his résumé. If you
consider the tasks enumerated, it is reasonable to conclude that these duties
were those which can be ascribed to a senior official and not merely a clerk.
According to a Mr. Andre
Guichaoua, a recognized expert on the Rwandan genocide, and an expert at the
International Tribunal where suspected war criminals from Rwanda were being
examined and the author of “De la Guerre au Génocide”, Habinshuti was in
fact instrumental in organizing the meeting in question at the Prime Minister’s
house. In fact, Mr. Guichaoua identified the Habinshuti as one of the persons
implicated in the organization of the meeting of April 2, 1994 and also
identified him as one of the participants in such meeting. According to Mr.
Guichaoua, another officer, Captain Bernard Ndayisaba was implicated along with
the Habinshuti in the organization of that meeting. Captain Ndayisaba was a
staff security officer of the Prime Minister. According to the Habinshuti,
Captain Ndayisaba was present at the meeting of April 2, 1994 and, initially,
testified that he saw him at the meeting in question.
Habinshuti denied
organizing and participating in the meeting of April 2, 1994. The respondent
testified that April 2, 1994, was a Saturday so he could not possibly have been
present at such meeting as he was home all day. According to his testimony, he
attended at the Prime Minister’s house on Friday, April 1, 1994 but only to
deliver last minute mail which had arrived late in the day. According to him,
there were many people in attendance at what he relates was a social gathering.
He claims to have stayed for 15 minutes and then left to go home. According to him,
the gathering in question did not appear to be a meeting. He then went on to
explain that the meeting of April 2, 1994 may have, in fact, taken place on
April 1st, 1994, thereby further impugning his credibility.
I should point out that
what took place at that meeting was amongst other topics, the mass murder
of the Tutsi in Rwanda. His involvement
and or presence at the meeting of April 1994; whether it be on April 1st or
2nd-points to his involvement in government affairs at a very senior
level. And if Habinshuti was present at that meeting in his capacity of head of
Social Affairs, he would have been an active participant in that meeting.
The Prime Minister was
attempting to reform the military. The information that the Prime Minister was
meeting with the military was used by Hutu extremists to suggest the a coup by
the Tutsi was being planned. Habinshuti has been credibly identified as having
been the originator of such meeting in conjunction with a military officer. In
light of such information, the tribunal concluded that Habinshuti was
influential in policy making and his role was politically significant as he had
the potential to exercise significant influence on the exercise of government
power.
Habinchuti never raised the
issue of any errors in his résumé. In fact, he never dwelled on the nature of
his duties, nor did he elaborate on the nature of his work. Further, he contented himself with denying any
involvement in the genocide which occurred in Rwanda despite the fact that up
to that time, the Canadian authorities never accused him of being involved in
the genocide. They merely said that he
had been been a senior official in the service of a government involved in the
genocide. The fact that the respondent did not distance himself from his role
as a senior official led the tribunal to conclude that he misunderstood what
the government was asking of him. It appeared likely that it was at this point
that Habinchuti became aware that the information he presented in his résumé
was incriminating.
The Immigration Appeal
Division concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Habinchuti
was involved in the planning of the meeting of April 2, 1994 and reiterated the
fact that an internationally recognized expert on the subject named him as a co
originator of that particular meeting.
The tribunal concluded that
there were reasonable grounds to believe that Habinchuti was someone with
authority and responsibilities in the Rwandan government and as such, concluded
that there were reasonable grounds to believe that that exerted power and
influence as a senior official in a designated regime and that the consequently
fits the definition of “prescribed senior official” as defined in section 16(c) of the Regulations. They granted him asylum. The Minister of Innigration
appealed to the Supreme Court. That court ruled that Jean Berchmans Habinshuti is declared inadmissible to Canada under paragraph
35(1)(b) of the Act
and should be deported. At the time of this writing, he hasn`t been deported
but his deportaion is imminent and when he is deported, I will add that
information to this article as an UPDATE.
There is something I want
to add in this article. Habinchuti has obviously been condemned as being guilty
by association. That type of determination is tricky at best. It means that if
you are present at a meeting in which the murder of someone or many people is
discussed, and you do nothing to sway the atendees from committing the murder,
then you are just as guilty as those that promote the murder.
Adolf Eichman was a Lt.
Colonel in the Nazi regime and responsible for transporting Jews to
concentration camps. He attend the Wannsee Conference in which Nazi leaders
discussed Himmler`s plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe. Eichmann did not
make policy, but acted in an operational capacity. Specific deportation orders
came from Himmler. Eichmann's office was responsible for collecting information
on the Jews in each area, organizing the seizure of their property, and
arranging for and scheduling trains that would mtake them to the camps. He was
later captured by the Israelis and hanged as a war criminal.
I don`t know just how much impute
if any that Habinchuti had at that April 1974 meeting but the fact that he was
present as a high official would lead a reasonable person to believe that he
had some impute about what was to be done to the Tutsi who were later murdered
by the Hutus in the hundreds of thousands.
No doubt, the present government of Rawanda is anxious to get their
hands on this man as soon as he arrives in Rawanda.
No comments:
Post a Comment