Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/por/docs/v2_cou_ca_rule150
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 17:03:54
Document Index: 228349508

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 9', '§ 1014', '§ 1502', '§ 19', '§ 57', '§ 72', '§ 87', '§ 11']

Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states that the means of securing observance of the law of armed conflict “include protest and demand for compensation by a belligerent or neutral power”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 15-1, § 3.
The manual further provides: “A state which violates the LOAC shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 15-2, § 9.
The responsibility for the treatment of PWs rests upon the Detaining Power. Failure to properly care for PWs may make that power liable to pay compensation, while the individuals responsible for such ill-treatment or for allowing it to occur, are liable to be tried as war criminals.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1014.
1502. General
2. Once hostilities have commenced, the means of securing observance of LOAC are limited … [They] include protest and demand for compensation by a belligerent or neutral power …
1506. State responsibility
1. Parties to the conflict are responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces. [A] state which violates the LOAC shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1502.2 and 1506.1.
Canada’s Code of Conduct After Capture Manual (2004) states: “responsibility for the treatment of PWs [prisoners of war] rests upon the detaining power. Failure to care for PWs properly may make that power pay compensation”.
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides:
There is hereby established a fund, to be known as the Crimes Against Humanity Fund, into which shall be paid
(a) all money obtained through enforcement in Canada of orders of the International Criminal Court for reparation or forfeiture or orders of that Court imposing a fine;
(b) all money obtained in accordance with section 31; and
(c) any money otherwise received as a donation to the Crimes Against Humanity Fund.
The Attorney General of Canada may make payments out of the Crimes Against Humanity Fund, with or without a deduction for costs, to the International Criminal Court, the Trust Fund established under article 79 of the Rome Statute, victims of offences under this Act or of offences within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and to the families of those victims, or otherwise as the Attorney General of Canada sees fit.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Article 30.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall pay into the Crimes Against Humanity Fund
(a) the net proceeds received from the disposition of any property referred to in subsections 4(1) to (3) of the Seized Property Management Act that is forfeited to Her Majesty and disposed of by that Minister, if the property was derived as the result of the commission of an offence under this Act; and
(b) amounts paid or recovered as a fine imposed under subsection 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code in relation to proceedings for an offence under this Act.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Article 31.
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) was amended by an Act assented to on 18 December 2001, to provide:
30. (1) There is hereby established a fund, to be known as the Crimes Against Humanity Fund, into which shall be paid
Payment out of Fund
(2) The Attorney General of Canada may make payments out of the Crimes Against Humanity Fund, with or without a deduction for costs, to the International Criminal Court, the Trust Fund established under article 79 of the Rome Statute, victims of offences under this Act or of offences within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and to the families of those victims, or otherwise as the Attorney General of Canada sees fit.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, as amended by An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, assented to on 18 December 2001, Sections 30–31.
In the Bouzari case before Canada’s Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2004, the appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran [2002] OJ No. 1624), which had barred him from suing the Islamic Republic of Iran, under Canada’s State Immunity Act 1985 (SIA). Bouzari had attempted to claim damages for torture, an action which had arisen out of events that had occurred in the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1993 and 1994. In summarizing the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeal noted:
[19] The motion judge dismissed the action in reasons for judgment that are both thorough and erudite. She first addressed the question of the court’s jurisdiction over a claim that is brought against a foreign defendant for a tort committed abroad. While she found no real and substantial connection with Ontario, as would normally be required to establish jurisdiction, she declined to decide the case on that basis because of the possibility that these rules might be modified where the claim is for torture by a foreign state inflicted in that state.
[20] She then turned to the issue of the state immunity of Iran. She found that none of the three exceptions provided in the SIA applies to displace the immunity accorded by s. 3 of that legislation. She also concluded that there is no public international law, sourced either in treaties or in customary international law, that alters that conclusion. Finally, she found that s. 3 of the SIA does not violate s. 7 of the Charter Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[21] As a result, she concluded that the court has no jurisdiction over Iran in the circumstances of this case because of state immunity. She therefore dismissed the action. Mr. Bouzari now appeals.
Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Bouzari case, Judgment, 30 June 2004, §§ 19–21.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, holding that the SIA precludes claims against foreign States for acts not enumerated in the statute, including torture:
[57] In my view [Goudge, JA], the wording of the SIA must be taken as a complete answer to this argument. Section 3(1) could not be clearer. To reiterate, it says:
3. (1) Except as provided by this Act, a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of any court in Canada [emphasis added by Court of Appeal].
[58] The plain and ordinary meaning of these words is that they codify the law of sovereign immunity.
Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Bouzari case, Judgment, 30 June 2004, §§ 57–58.
The Court of Appeal also affirmed the lower court’s finding that Canada’s treaty obligations do not encompass the civil remedy sought by Bouzari:
[72] … [I]t is Article 14 [of the 1984 Convention Against Torture] which is the focus of the appellant’s argument. It reads as follows:
1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.
[81] In my view, the motion judge correctly concluded on the basis of these various considerations that Canada’s treaty obligation pursuant to Article 14 does not extend to providing the right to a civil remedy against a foreign state for torture committed abroad. The appellant’s various attacks on her careful analysis all must be dismissed. Canada’s treaty obligation under Article 14 simply does not extend to the appellant’s case.
Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Bouzari case, Judgment, 30 June 2004, §§ 72 and 81.
The Court of Appeal also affirmed the lower court’s finding that, although the prohibition against torture constitutes a rule of jus cogens, that norm does not encompass the civil remedy sought by Bouzari:
[87] The motion judge found that prohibition of torture is a rule of jus cogens. For the purpose of this appeal, no one, including the Attorney General of Canada, questions this conclusion. Rather the question is the scope of that norm. In particular, does it extend to a requirement to provide the right to a civil remedy for torture committed abroad by a foreign state?
[94] … [A]s a matter of practice, states do not accord a civil remedy for torture committed abroad by foreign states. The peremptory norm of prohibition against torture does not encompass the civil remedy contended for by the appellant.
Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Bouzari case, Judgment, 30 June 2004, §§ 87 and 94.
In 1988, the Canadian Government concluded an agreement with the National Association of Japanese Canadians, the so-called Japanese-Canadian Redress Agreement, under which the government officially acknowledged that the forced removal and internment of Canadian nationals of Japanese descent during the Second World War was unjust and violated human rights. The Agreement also provided:
As symbolic redress for those injustices, the Government offers:
a) [CAN]$21,000 individual redress, subject to application by eligible persons of Japanese ancestry who, during this period, were subjected to internment, relocation, deportation, loss of property or otherwise deprived of the full enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms based solely on the fact that they were of Japanese ancestry; each payment would be made in a tax-free lump sum, as expeditiously as possible;
b) [CAN]$12 million to the Japanese-Canadian community, through the National Association of Japanese Canadians, to undertake educational, social and cultural activities or programmes that contribute to the well-being of the community or that promote human rights;
c) [CAN]$12 million, on behalf of Japanese Canadians and in commemoration of those who suffered these injustices, and matched by a further $12 million from the Government of Canada, for the creation of a Canadian Race Relations Foundation that will foster racial harmony and cross-cultural understanding and help to eliminate racism.
f) to provide, through contractual arrangements, up to [CAN]$3 million to the National Association of Japanese Canadians for their assistance, including community liaison, in administration of redress over the period of implementation.
Canada, Prime Minister, Agreement between the Government of Canada and the National Association of Japanese Canadians (Japanese-Canadian Redress Agreement), 22 September 1988.
In 1991, during a debate in the UN General Assembly on the environmental impact of the Gulf War, Canada deduced the illegality of Iraq’s conduct of war from the fact that “a mechanism had been put in place [by the relevant UN Security Council resolutions] to obtain compensation for the damage done and the clean-up involved”.
Canada, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/ 46/SR.18, 22 October 1991, § 11.
In 1988, the Canadian Government concluded an agreement with the National Association of Japanese Canadians, the so-called Japanese-Canadian Redress Agreement, the terms of which provided:
Despite perceived military necessities at the time, the forced removal and internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II and their deportation and expulsion following the war, was unjust. In retrospect, government policies of disenfranchisement, detention, confiscation and sale of private and community property, expulsion, deportation and restriction of movement, which continued after the war, were influenced by discriminatory attitudes. Japanese Canadians who were interned had their property liquidated and the proceeds of sale were used to pay for their own internment.
Therefore, the Government of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, does hereby:
1) acknowledge that the treatment of Japanese Canadians during and after World War II was unjust and violated principles of human rights as they are understood today;
2) pledge to ensure, to the full extent that its powers allow, that such events will not happen again; and
3) recognize, with great respect, the fortitude and determination of Japanese Canadians who, despite great stress and hardship, retain their commitment and loyalty to Canada and contribute so richly to the development of the Canadian nation.