(For background, see Professor Lafontaine's blog post on the Mugesera deportation, below).
Unlike many stories involving international and transnational criminal law, this one is getting some legs under it. First, Mugesera himself is reported to be critically ill in hospital in Montreal, having allegedly taken an overdose of medication. This was in reaction to the 11 January decision of Justice Shore of the Federal Court, which ordered his deportation.
The international law end of it is heating up. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights made a request of the government of Canada that it stay the deportation until it is able to assess the case--essentially to decide whether it would be a human rights violation for Canada to deport Mugesera to Rwanda. The office of Public Safety Minister Vic Teows quickly stated that it would not comply with the UNHCR request, which set off some controversy.
Then, Mr. Mugesera's new lawyers obtained a one-week stay of the deportation ruling, from the Quebec Superior Court, in order to provide time to argue that the government is bound to comply with the UNHCR delay request. Minister Teows is not impressed and has announced plans to seek to appeal or vacate the ruling. The Quebec Superior Court ruling itself has been criticized by distinguished U. Montreal law professor Stephane Beaulac (his comments in French here).
The question is an interesting one: any decision by the UNHCR regarding whether or not Canada should deport Mugesera to Rwanda will not be binding on Canada. However, the legal question is whether or not Canada is bound to delay its proceedings in order for the UNHCR to make its inquiry. It is something of a replay of the Ahani case (2002, ONCA), which didn't end well for the individual.
Law professor moment: and students wonder why we make them take courses in procedure in law school. Even in international law, the day-to-day practice is procedural! They, and everyone following or involved in the Mugesera matter, should bear in mind the remarks of Justice Rosenberg (dissenting) in Ahani:
"[T]he courts in their commendable effort to support the government’s defence of this and other countries from terrorism must bear in mind the words of Justice Frankfurter in McNabb v. U.S., 318 U.S. 332 (1942) at 347, which were adopted for this country by Lamer J. in Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act at p. 310: “the history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards.”
Comments