Source: https://cap-pme.fr/assurance-protection-juridique-la-cour-supreme-rejette-la-demande-dasile-penale-pour-crime-grave-non-politique-aux-etats-unis/
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 21:35:07+00:00
Document Index: 161586870

Matched Legal Cases: ['CSC ', 'CSC ', 'CSC ', 'CSC ', 'CSC ', 'CSC ', 'art. 245', 'art. 1', 'art. 1', 'art. 14', 'art. 31', 'art. 1']

Assurance Protection Juridique : La Cour suprême rejette la demande d'asile pénale pour crime grave non politique aux États-Unis - CAP-PME
Publié par CAP-PME | 20 Sep 2018 | Assurance Protection Juridique | 0 |
La Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision rejetant une plainte cubaine concernant le statut de réfugié au Canada pour des crimes violents graves aux États-Unis après leur condamnation après avoir obtenu le statut de réfugié dans le pays, qui a ensuite été retirée en raison de ses condamnations ultérieures. .
Febles c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)
Luis Alberto Hernandez Febles, appelant; v. Le secrétaire d’État à la Citoyenneté et à l’Immigration, intimé et Amnesty International, le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, l’Association canadienne des avocats pour les réfugiés, le Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés et l’Association canadienne des droits des citoyens, sont intervenus.
[2014] S.C.J. 68
[2014] Dans le volume 68
2014 CSC 68, dossier no 35215.
Cour suprême du Canada, 25 mars 2014; Jugement: 30 octobre 2014 Actuellement: juge en chef McLachlin et LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Les juges Cromwell, Moldaver et Wagner.
(Paragraphe 136)
DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA COUR D’APPEL FÉDÉRALE
Histoire ultérieure:
REMARQUE: Ce document est soumis à une révision éditoriale avant d’être reproduit sous sa forme définitive dans les Rapports de la Cour suprême du Canada. Mots-clés de la cour: Droit de l’immigration – Réfugiés au sens de la Convention – Exclusion fondée sur un crime grave avant l’entrée en tant que réfugié – Citoyen canadien demandant la protection des réfugiés canadiens – La Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié rejette la demande d’asile au motif que avant – L’examen du motif de l’exclusion comprend les cas ou événements après la commission du crime, par exemple si le demandeur a échappé à la justice lors de la présentation de sa demande d’asile ou s’il a commis des antécédents graves a toutefois droit à l’asile parce qu’il a été pénalisé ou pour avoir changé son comportement temporaire – Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, LC 2001, ch. 27, p. 98 – Convention des Nations Unies sur le statut des réfugiés, RT Can. T. S. 1969, article 6 1Fb).
Résumé du tribunal:
Febles a été admis comme réfugié de Cuba aux États-Unis. Vivant aux États-Unis, il a été reconnu coupable et agressé avec deux armes mortelles pendant son séjour en prison – dans le premier cas, frapper son colocataire avec un marteau, et dans le second, menacer de tuer la petite amie de son colocataire à une date tardive. Les États-Unis ont retiré leur statut de réfugié et ont rendu un arrêté d’expulsion. Febles s’est enfui plus tard au Canada et a cherché à protéger les réfugiés canadiens.
Les demandes de protection des réfugiés canadiens sont régies par la Loi sur l’immigration et le statut de réfugié (LIPR). L’article 98 de la LIPR exclut la protection des réfugiés canadiens de la Convention 1F de la Convention des Nations Unies relative au statut des réfugiés («la Convention d’asile»). Personnes visées à l’article 1er, point b). Article 1F de la convention d’asile. L’article 7 (b) exclut du champ d’application de la protection des réfugiés toute personne qui a commis un crime non politique grave en dehors du pays de refuge avant d’entrer dans ce pays en tant que réfugié. Les besoins de protection des réfugiés canadiens sont déterminés par la Section du statut de réfugié de la Commission de l’immigration et de l’asile (ci-après «la Commission»). Lorsqu’elle a statué sur la demande d’asile de Febles, la Commission a conclu que Febles était un réfugié au sens de la section 1F de la Convention sur l’asile. C’est l’une des personnes visées à l’article 1 b) et, par conséquent, l’art. Article 98 de la LIPR. La Cour fédérale et la Cour d’appel fédérale ont toutes deux rejeté la demande de contrôle judiciaire de Febles.
Arrêt (les juges Abella et Cromwell ne sont pas d’accord): l’appel doit être rejeté.
Selon McLachlin, C.J. et LeBel, Rothstein, Moldaver et Wagner, J.J .: L’article 98 de la LIPR exclut les personnes « visées à l’article 1, section E ou F » de la Convention sur l’asile de la protection des réfugiés canadiens. Article 1F de la convention d’asile. L’article 2 (b) fait référence à « toute personne qui a de sérieuses raisons de croire … qu’elle a commis un crime non politique grave en dehors du pays de refuge avant de fuir vers ce pays. » La question principale dans ce cas est de savoir comment interpréter l’article 1Fb) de la Convention sur l’asile.
L’interprétation d’un traité international est régie par la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités (« la Convention de Vienne »). Conformément à l’article 31, paragraphe 1, de la convention de Vienne, l’interprétation du traité est régie par les critères suivants: 1) « sens ordinaire » des termes; (2) le contexte; et (3) l’objet et le but du contrat. L’article 32 de la Convention de Vienne précise en outre que, outre la confirmation de l’interprétation résultant de l’application de l’article 31, des moyens d’interprétation supplémentaires, y compris les travaux préparatoires au contrat et les circonstances dans lesquelles il a été conclu, ne devraient être utilisés que si l’article 31, paragraphe 3 son interprétation est ambiguë ou obscure ou manifestement absurde ou déraisonnable.
1F. Le sens habituel de l’expression « infraction grave … » à l’article b) ne s’applique qu’à l’infraction au moment où elle a été commise et non à quelque chose postérieur à l’infraction. Rien dans le libellé de la disposition n’indique que la section 1F. L’article b) ne s’applique qu’aux réfugiés, ou que des facteurs tels que l’absence actuelle de danger, la libération ou la réhabilitation d’un crime doivent être pris en compte ou mis en balance avec la gravité du crime.
1F. Le contexte entourant l’article b) soutient cette interprétation. 1F. Les liens directs entre l’article 1er, point b), et l’article 1F. Article dans son ensemble. 1F. Article 1er, point a), et article 1F. Le libellé de l’article 1 c) ne permet pas de penser que l’article 1F. Conformément à l’article b), il est limité aux réfugiés de la protection des réfugiés. L’article 33, paragraphe 2, de la convention d’asile n’appuie pas non plus le point de vue selon lequel l’article 1Fb) est limité aux réfugiés. En effet, l’article 33, paragraphe 2, ne s’applique qu’aux crimes particulièrement graves et a l’obligation supplémentaire de démontrer le « danger pour la communauté » car il permet le renvoi d’une personne reconnue ayant besoin de protection.
De même, l’objet et le but de la Convention relative aux réfugiés n’étayent pas l’allégation selon laquelle l’article 1F. L’article b) est limité aux réfugiés. La Convention relative aux réfugiés a un double objectif: trouver un équilibre entre l’aide aux victimes de la répression en leur permettant de commencer une nouvelle vie dans d’autres pays, tout en protégeant les intérêts des pays d’accueil, auxquels il n’a pas été renoncé par la simple négociation d’une aide à la répression. victimes. La convention d’asile elle-même n’est pas un principe abstrait, mais un accord entre États souverains, sous certaines conditions, négocié avec tous les intérêts en jeu. En conséquence, les clauses d’exclusion ne devraient pas être étendues d’une manière contraire aux objectifs humanitaires généraux de la Convention sur l’asile, ni adopter des interprétations trop étroites qui ne tiennent pas compte de la nécessité pour les États parties de contrôler leur territoire. En fin de compte, la clause d’exclusion se veut d’exclusion et les objectifs généraux ne nécessitent pas l’interprétation des clauses d’exclusion sous une forme non étayée par le texte. 1F. L’article b) n’est pas limité aux réfugiés, ni à certains groupes de criminels graves qui ne perçoivent pas de revenus au moment de leur demande. Au lieu de cela, à l’exclusion de tous les candidats qui ont commis des crimes non politiques graves, section 1F. L’article b) exprime l’accord des États contractants sur le fait que ces personnes se verront accorder l’asile en raison de leur crime grave.
Exclure les personnes qui ont commis des crimes graves peut soutenir un certain nombre de politiques de subsidiarité – cela peut empêcher les personnes d’accéder à la justice; cela peut empêcher des personnes dangereuses et particulièrement non rentables d’entrer dans le pays hôte. Cela peut contribuer à préserver l’intégrité, la légitimité et la viabilité ultime du système d’asile. Cela peut décourager les États d’exporter des criminels en tant que réfugiés. Il peut permettre aux États de réduire le risque pour la société en tant que classe en cas de crime grave, étant donné la tâche difficile et le potentiel d’échec lorsqu’ils tentent de déterminer le danger persistant des criminels étrangers, qui ont souvent des informations fiables limitées. Quel que soit le 1F. La justification de l’article b) vise clairement à exclure les personnes qui ont déjà commis des crimes graves à l’étranger.
En ce qui concerne les préparatifs des travaux, les conditions d’interprétation de la convention de Vienne ne sont pas remplies en l’espèce. Le sens de l’article 1Fb) est clair et reconnaît qu’il n’y a pas d’ambiguïté, d’ambiguïté, d’absurdité ou de résultat déraisonnable. Par conséquent, la préparation des travaux ne doit pas être envisagée. En outre, même si elles sont prises en compte, les préparatifs de Travaux ne permettent pas d’affirmer que l’article 1Fb) concerne les fugitifs.
Un examen de la jurisprudence montre la difficulté de restreindre l’article 1F (b) aux personnes bornées, telles que celles qui fuient la justice, et confirme que, comme ses mots le suggèrent, il s’applique à toute personne ayant déjà commis un crime non politique grave. a. avant d’entrer dans le pays en tant que réfugié en dehors du pays de refuge. La vague de jurisprudence qui prévaut étaye également la conclusion selon laquelle la gravité du crime ne doit pas être mise en balance avec des facteurs extérieurs à la commission du crime, tels que le danger actuel ou la réhabilitation post-crime ou la perte de victimes.
1F. L’orientation pour l’examen d’un «crime grave» au sens de l’article b) consiste à déterminer si une peine maximale de dix ans ou plus aurait pu être imposée si le crime avait été commis au Canada. Cependant, la règle des dix ans ne doit pas être appliquée mécaniquement, décontextualisée ou injustement.
Dans le cas présent, Feblesre est représenté par 1F. L’article b) s’applique parce qu’il a commis de graves crimes non politiques à l’extérieur du Canada avant d’entrer au Canada en tant que réfugié. Par conséquent, le conseil d’administration a eu raison de conclure qu’il n’était pas admissible à la protection des réfugiés au Canada en vertu de l’art. Article 98 de la LIPR. Si votre expulsion vers Cuba présente un risque de mort, de torture ou de peines ou traitements cruels et inhabituels, vous devez demander le refus de nationalité. LIPR 97, 112, 113 (d) (i) et 114 (1) (b). Si vous souhaitez retirer le statut de réfugié précédemment accordé par les autorités américaines aux États-Unis, vous devez le faire au sein du système judiciaire américain. Il ne faut pas se fier au système judiciaire canadien pour déterminer l’exactitude ou la constitutionnalité des décisions prises par des fonctionnaires américains en vertu de la loi américaine.
Les juges Abella et Cromwell. (différent): La demande de statut de réfugié dans ce cas dépend de la détermination du moment où un crime non politique grave à l’extérieur du pays d’asile exclut l’individu du champ d’application de la Convention relative aux réfugiés.
Les conséquences de l’exclusion sont importantes. Si l’individu est 1F. Il ne remplit pas les conditions requises pour bénéficier du statut de « réfugié » en raison de l’exclusion contenue dans cet article et refuse totalement la protection humanitaire offerte par la Convention sur l’asile, y compris la protection contre le retour en vertu de l’article 33. En conséquence, il y a un risque que vous retourniez à la persécution dans votre pays d’origine, en refusant l’accès à la protection en vertu du droit national ou international des droits de l’homme. Compte tenu des objectifs de la Convention relative aux réfugiés relatifs aux droits de l’homme et des conséquences dramatiques de l’exclusion du statut de réfugié, l’art. Cet article nécessite une attention particulière.
Il ne fait aucun doute que 1F. Le but premier de l’article b) était d’exclure les personnes qui abusent du statut de réfugié, tout en évitant de rendre des comptes par des poursuites ou des sanctions pour un crime grave à l’extérieur du pays de refuge. Cependant, il existe une controverse considérable quant à savoir si le 1F. Dans quelle mesure l’article b) devait également remplir l’objectif accessoire d’exclure les individus qui ont été condamnés pour des crimes non politiques graves dans le passé et qui ont été poursuivis en vertu de la Convention sur les réfugiés pour la protection des réfugiés. L’approche des droits de l’homme à l’interprétation requise par la Convention de Vienne suggère que, à l’exception des crimes très graves, l’individu n’est pas automatiquement exclu de la protection humanitaire de la Convention sur l’asile et a droit à tout type d’exclusion ou de réadaptation.
Pour une compréhension complète, 1F. L’article b) doit être replacé dans le contexte de son contexte et examiné à la lumière de son histoire textuelle. 1F. Article 4 (b), qui a été adopté par les tribunaux d’autres juridictions, et article 1F. En raison de l’incertitude causée par les limites territoriales décrites à l’article b), le recours à des travaux préparatoires pour l’interprétation est utile.
Le processus de préparation des stocks donne un aperçu de la raison pour laquelle les signataires de la Convention ont adopté 1F. Article (b) actuellement dans le texte. Ils montrent que les discussions ne concernaient que les demandeurs d’asile qui avaient commis un crime en dehors du pays de refuge, mais n’avaient pas été condamnés ou punis pour ce crime. Le début de ces discussions a été d’élargir l’éventail des bénéficiaires du statut de réfugié. Dans ce contexte, il y avait un large consensus sur le fait que seuls ceux qui fuyaient des crimes non politiques graves étaient exclus de l’admissibilité. Il n’a jamais été question de ceux qui ont commis des crimes graves et purgé leur peine en dehors du pays hôte. Le libellé adopté pour étendre la protection ne devrait pas être utilisé pour restreindre la catégorie des personnes pouvant bénéficier de la protection.
Les tribunaux des autres tribunaux acceptent généralement que l’article 1F. Le but initial de l’article b) était de refuser le statut de réfugié à ceux qui se sont évadés, à savoir ceux qui ont évité d’être poursuivis pour des délits non politiques graves commis à l’étranger. Cela reposait sur l’hypothèse que l’obtention de ce statut de réfugié mettrait en péril l’intégrité du système international de protection des réfugiés. Toutes les juridictions semblent convenir qu’il existe des circonstances dans lesquelles 1F. L’article b) exclut les individus de la Convention sur les réfugiés, mais il semble y avoir peu d’accord sur le moment où ces circonstances se présentent.
Cependant, la jurisprudence internationale récente montre qu’il n’est pas du tout clair que les signataires de la Convention sur les réfugiés aient exclu toute personne présumée avoir commis de graves délits non politiques, qu’elle ait ou non été réhabilitée. Cela permettra à la Cour de tirer ses propres conclusions sur l’interprétation de la portée du paragraphe 1Fb).
L’approche interprétative nécessaire de bonne foi exige que 1F. Le texte de l’article b) ne doit pas être séparé de l’objectif des droits de l’homme. Cela est particulièrement vrai étant donné la préoccupation claire des préparatifs techniques que 1F. La base de l’exclusion au titre de l’article b) devrait être limitée afin qu’il ne soit pas trop facile pour les États de refuser la protection humanitaire au titre de la Convention sur l’asile. En fait, il y a peu ou pas de pouvoir de dire que quiconque a commis un crime grave en dehors du pays de refuge n’est toujours pas intéressé à protéger la Convention sur les réfugiés, quelle que soit sa situation personnelle. Une telle approche impitoyablement exclusive – et littérale – irait à la fois à l’encontre de « l’approche de bonne foi » de l’interprétation requise par la Convention de Vienne et de l’objectif des droits de l’homme de la Convention sur l’asile.
Selon la gravité de l’infraction, si l’individu est considéré comme ayant commis un crime non politique grave, l’objet de l’article 1Fb) peut être atteint si la situation de l’individu reflète un degré suffisant de réadaptation ou de secours que le demandeur ne devrait pas d’interdire la protection humanitaire de la Convention d’asile. L’achèvement de la peine et des facteurs tels que le temps écoulé depuis le crime, l’âge du crime et le comportement de réadaptation de l’individu sont tous pertinents. En revanche, les personnes qui ont commis des crimes si graves qu’elles devraient être considérées comme ne méritant pas le statut de réfugié seraient exclues. Cette approche est conforme à l’intention des signataires de la Convention sur l’asile de protéger l’intégrité et la viabilité du système international de protection des réfugiés en limitant les obligations des Parties contractantes aux personnes qui commettent des crimes très graves.
Dans cette affaire, le plaignant a immédiatement regretté le crime et s’est tourné vers la police. Il a plaidé coupable et l’a condamné à une infraction pénale. Il a également admis qu’il avait des problèmes d’alcool au moment du crime. Bien qu’il soit clair que le crime était grave, il n’est pas encore nécessaire de déterminer si le crime est si grave que la situation personnelle du requérant n’a pas été prise en compte depuis le temps de la peine de 1984 lorsqu’il a examiné son admissibilité au statut de réfugié. En conséquence, l’appel devrait être accueilli et l’affaire renvoyée à la commission de l’immigration et de l’asile pour retour. Cas cités
Rédigé par: le juge en chef McLachlin
Référence: Pushpanathan c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration), [1998] 1 R.C.S. 982; Thomson contre Thomson, [1994] 3 R.C.S. 551; Januzi contre Secrétaire d’État au ministère de l’intérieur, [2006] UKHL 5, [2006] 2 A. C. 426; Ezokola c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration) CSC 40 de 2013, [2013] 2 R.C.S. 678; R. (European Roma Legal Center) contre Immigration Officer in Prague Airport, [2004] UKHL 55, [2005] 2 A. C. 1; Canada (Procureur général) c Ward, [1993] 2 R.C.S. 689; B (espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice) (2008), BVerwG 10 C 48.07, OVG 8 A 2632/06 A; Bundesrepublik Deutschland contre B., [2010] EUECJ C-57/09; T. c. Secrétaire d’État au ministère de l’intérieur, [1996] 2 Tous dans E. R. 865; AH (Algérie) contre Secrétaire d’État, ministère de l’intérieur, [2013] UKUT 00382; Dhayakpa contre Ministre de l’immigration et des affaires ethniques, [1995] FCA 1653, 62 F.C.R. 556; Ovcharuk contre Ministre de l’immigration et des affaires multiculturelles, [1998] FCA 1314, 88 F.C.R. 173; Ministre de l’Immigration et des Affaires multiculturelles c. Singh, [2002] HCA 7, 209, C.L.R. 533; Procureur général (ministre de l’Immigration) contre X Tamoul, [2010] NZSC 107, 1 N.Z.L.R. 721; X v. Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, 27 479, 18 mai 2009; X v. Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, n ° 69656, 8 novembre 2011; Office: français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides c. Hykaj, 320910, 4 mai 2011; Jayasekara c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration), 2008 CAF 404, [2009] 4 F.C.R. 164; Chan c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration), [2000] 4 F.C. 390; Bell ExpressVu Limited Liability Company c. Rex, 2002. CSC 42, [2002] 2 R.C.S. 559; Suresh c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration), Comité de 2002 1, [2002] 1 R.C.S. troisième
Écrit par Abella J. (différent)
Yugraneft Corp. c. Rexx Management Corp. 2010. CSC 19, [2010] 1 R.C.S. 649; Peracomo Inc. c. TELUS Communications Co., 2014, CSC 29; Pushpanathan c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration), [1998] 1 R.C.S. 982; Ezokola c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration) CSC 40 de 2013, [2013] 2 R.C.S. 678; Al-Sirri contre Secrétaire d’État à l’intérieur, [2012] UKSC 54, [2013] Dans 1 A.C. 745; Canada (Procureur général) c Ward, [1993] 2 R.C.S. 689; Bundesrepublik Deutschland contre B., [2010] EUECJ C-57/09; SRYYY contre Ministre de l’immigration, du multiculturalisme et du bénévolat, [2005] FCAFC 42, 220 A.L.R. 394; Procureur général (ministre de l’Immigration) contre X Tamoul, [2010] NZSC 107, 1 N.Z.L.R. 721; AH (Algérie) contre Secrétaire d’État, ministère de l’intérieur, [2013] UKUT 00382; Office: français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides c. Hykaj, 320910, 4 mai 2011; Dhayakpa contre Ministre de l’immigration et des affaires ethniques, [1995] FCA 1653, 62 F.C.R. 556; Ministre de l’Immigration et des Affaires multiculturelles c. Singh, [2002] HCA 7, 209, C.L.R. 533; X v. Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, n ° 69656, 8 novembre 2011; XXX ans Etat belge, 199.079, A. 192.074 / XI-16.797; X c. Commissaire général aux refugés et aux apatrides, 27 479, 18 mai 2009; KK (Turquie) contre Secrétaire d’État, ministère de l’intérieur, [2004] UKIAT 00101; Secrétaire d’État au ministère de l’intérieur des AA (Palestine), [2005] UKIAT 00104; R. (JS (Sri Lanka)) contre Secrétaire d’État au ministère de l’intérieur, [2010] UKSC 15, [2010] 3 Toutes les lois et tous les règlements cités dans E.R.881
Aliens and Citizenship, 8 États-Unis. s. 1158 (c) (2) (B), (3).
Btk., R.S.C. 1985, ch. C 46e
Loi sur l’immigration et la protection de l’asile, octobre 2001, ch. 27, p. 95-98, 100-102, 113, 114.
Code criminel de Californie, art. 245 a) 1).
Constitution de l’Organisation internationale des réfugiés, 18 U.N.T.S. 3, Ann. Partie I, partie II
Convention relative au statut des réfugiés, RT Can. T. S. 1969 Numéro 6, préambule, art. 1, 33.
Convention sur les réfugiés, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, art. 1, 33.
Déclaration des États parties à la Convention de 1951 et / ou au Protocole de 1967 relatifs au statut des réfugiés, HCR / MMSP / 2001/09.
Protocole sur le statut des réfugiés, 606 U.N.T.S. 267e
Charte du Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, G.A. Res. 428 (V), par. 7
Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), brevet américain A / 810, 71 (1948), art. 14
Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités, RT Can. T. S. N ° 37, 1980, art. 31, 32 Auteurs cités
Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. Le réfugié du droit international, 2e édition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Grahl-Madsen, Atle. Le statut de réfugié en droit international, vol. Moi, un personnage réfugié. Leyde, Pays-Bas: Sijthoff, 1966.
Hathaway, James C. et Michelle Foster. Refugee Status Act, 2e édition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Nations Unies. Recueil des travaux collectés de la Convention de Genève de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés, volume 2. III., Conférence des administrateurs sur le statut des réfugiés et des apatrides. Amsterdam: Dutch Refugee Council, 1989.
Nations Unies. Assemblée. Conférence de plénipotentiaires sur le statut des réfugiés et des apatrides: rapport de synthèse de la vingt-neuvième session, USA. A / CONF.2 / SR.16 (1951).
Nations Unies. Assemblée. Conférence de plénipotentiaires sur le statut des réfugiés et des apatrides: rapport de synthèse de la vingt-neuvième session, USA. A / CONF.2 / SR.24 (1951).
Nations Unies. Assemblée. Conférence de plénipotentiaires sur le statut des réfugiés et des apatrides: rapport de synthèse de la vingt-neuvième session, USA. A / CONF.2 / SR.29 (1951).
Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés. « Note d’information sur l’application des clauses d’exclusion: article 1F de la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés » (2003) (en ligne: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857d24.html).
Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés. Lignes directrices sur la protection internationale: application des clauses d’exclusion: article 1F de la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés, HCR / GIP / 03/05, 4 septembre 2003 (en ligne: www.unhcr.org). Histoire et disposition:
Appel d’un jugement de la Cour d’appel fédérale (les juges Evans, Sharlow et Stratas), 2012. CAF 324, 442 N.R. 290, 357 D.L.R. (4e) 343, [2012] F.C.J. 1609 (QL), 2012, CarswellNat 5012, confirmant la décision du juge Scott, 2011 CF 1103, 397 F.T.R. 179 [2011] F.C.J. 1360 (QL) 2011, CarswellNat 3917. L’appel a été rejeté, les juges Abella et Cromwell. une opinion séparée. Représentant légal:
Jared Will et Peter Shams en appel.
Jennifer Klinck, Perri Ravon, Michael Sabet et Justin Dubois, Amnesty International.
John Terry, Ryan Lax et Rana R. Khan, les intervenants, sont le Haut-Commissaire des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés.
Aviva Basman et Alyssa Manning, intervenant dans l’Association des avocats canadiens pour les réfugiés.
Catherine Dauvergne, Angus Grant et Pia Zambelli, intervenante, Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés.
Peter Edelmann, Lorne Waldman et Aris Daghighian, intervenant, Association des droits des citoyens canadiens.
Avocats de l’appelant: Jared Will, Montréal; Peter Shams, Montréal.
Avocat défendeur: Procureur général du Canada, Montréal.
Avocats pour l’intervention d’Amnesty International: Power Law, Ottawa.
L’avocat de l’intervenant est le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés: Torys, Toronto; HCR, Toronto.
L’avocat de l’intervenant est l’Association canadienne des avocats et avocates en droit des réfugiés: Refugee Agency, Toronto.
L’avocat de l’intervenant est le Conseil des réfugiés du Canada: Université de la Colombie-Britannique, Vancouver.
Avocat intervenant, Association canadienne de droit civil: Edelmann & Co. Law Office, Vancouver; Waldman & Associates, Toronto.
Arrêts du juge en chef McLachlin et des juges LeBel, Rothstein, Moldaver et Karakatsanis. fourni
· Le juge en chef McLACHLIN :–
1 La question en l’espèce est que Luis Alberto Hernandez Febles n’est pas admissible à l’asile en raison de crimes commis avant son arrivée au Canada. M. Febles a été admis aux États-Unis en tant que réfugié de Cuba. Vivant aux États-Unis, il a été condamné et a passé du temps en prison pour avoir attaqué avec deux armes meurtrières – dans le premier cas, il a frappé son colocataire avec un marteau et dans le second, le couteau de la petite amie d’un colocataire. Les États-Unis ont retiré leur statut de réfugié et ont rendu une mesure de renvoi, qui existe toujours.
2 Après la révocation de son statut de réfugié aux États-Unis, M. Febles s’est enfui au Canada, y pénétrant illégalement. Il réclame maintenant la protection des réfugiés au Canada. Il s’agit de l’article 1 (F) (b) de la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés (« Exclusion des délits graves »). T. S. 1969 6 («Convention sur l’asile»), introduite au Canada par l’art. Loi sur l’immigration et la protection de l’asile, octobre 2001, ch. 27 («LIPR») l’empêche de bénéficier de la protection des réfugiés en raison de crimes antérieurs.
3 Essentiellement l’article 1F de la convention d’asile. L’article 2, point b), a une interprétation différente. Selon le secrétaire d’État à la Citoyenneté et à l’Immigration («le ministre»), l’exclusion d’un délit grave en vertu de l’article 1Fb) doit être déclenchée lorsque le demandeur d’asile a commis un délit non politique grave avant d’arriver au Canada. Cela ne se limite pas aux réfugiés fuyant la justice. Selon le ministre, les événements post-crime tels que la réhabilitation ou le sauvetage ne sont pas non plus pertinents. La seule question est que le demandeur avait commis un crime non politique grave avant de demander l’asile au Canada.
4 M. Febles et le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) agissent en vertu de la section 1F. Soutient une interprétation plus étroite de l’article b). M. Febles soutient que 1F. L’exclusion de l’article b) est limitée aux réfugiés de la justice (dans lesquels M. Febles n’est pas après que la peine a été purgée). Az UNHRC (akivel Febles úr egyetért) azt állítja, hogy a kérdés az, hogy a menekült kérelmezője « érdemel-e » menekültvédelmet a kérelem benyújtásának időpontjában, ami nemcsak magának a bűncselekménynek a súlyosságát, hanem annak mennyi időtartamát is figyelembe veszi a bűncselekmény elkövetése, a felperes magatartása a bűncselekmény elkövetése óta, hogy a felperes sajnálta-e vagy lemondott-e a bűncselekményről, és hogy a felperes jelenleg veszélyt jelent-e Kanada biztonságára.
5 Dióhéjban a miniszter kijelenti, hogy az 1F. Cikk b) pontja szerinti súlyos bűncselekmény pusztán a bűncselekmény súlyosságának vizsgálata, amikor azt elkövették, míg Febles úr és az UNHRC szerint más kérdések megfontolására van szükség – hogy a kérelmező menekült-e és / vagy jelenlegi helyzete, ideértve a rehabilitációt, a megmentést és a jelenlegi veszélyességet.
6 A következő okok miatt egyetértek a Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Bizottság (a továbbiakban: tanács) az alábbi bíróságok által elfogadott következtetésével, miszerint csak a bűncselekmények elkövetésével kapcsolatos tényezőket lehet figyelembe venni, és hogy ezeket a bűncselekményeket az 1F. cikk b) pontja értelmében súlyos. Az 1F cikk b) pontjának ezen értelmezése alapján Febles úr nem jogosult menekültvédelemre az Egyesült Államokban elkövetett súlyos bűncselekmények miatt, mielőtt menekültként beutazott volna Kanadába.
A kötelező rendszer
7 Kanadában a menekültek védelmével kapcsolatos kérelmeket az IRPA az igazgatótanácsnak ítéli meg. Az IRPA szerinti három eljárás releváns a jelen fellebbezéshez.
8 Az első eljárás (az IRPA 100–102. Pontja) meghatározza, hogy a menekültvédelem iránti igény jogosult-e az Igazgatótanács elé terjesztésre. Febles úr kérelmének benyújtásakor ss. A 101. cikk (1) bekezdésének f) pontja és a 101. cikk (2) bekezdésének b) pontja feltéve, hogy egy keresetet nem lehet a tanács elé utalni, ha a kérelmezőt Kanadán kívüli bűncselekmény miatt ítélték el, ahol ugyanazon kanadai bűncselekmény maximálisan büntetendő legalább tízéves börtönbüntetésre került sor, és a felperes a miniszter szerint veszélyt jelentett a nyilvánosság számára. Ez az eljárás nem akadályozta Febles úr menekültvédelem iránti kérelmét, mivel a miniszter nem tett véleményt veszélyességről.
9 A második eljárás (az IRPA 95–98. Pontja) meghatározza, hogy a kérelmező jogosult-e menekültvédelemre. A 98. szakasz – az itt vitatott rendelkezés – előírja az Igazgatótanács számára, hogy utasítsa el a menekültügyi egyezmény 1E. Vagy 1F. Cikkében említett személyek menekültvédelmi oltalmi kérelmét. A menekültügyi egyezmény 1F. Cikkének b) pontja előírja, hogy olyan személy, akinek vonatkozásában komoly ok van arra, hogy úgy gondolja, hogy « súlyos nem politikai bűncselekményt követett el a menedék országán kívül, mielőtt menekültként beutazták volna az adott országba” kizárt a menekültügyi egyezmény oltalma alól. Ebben az esetben a cikk jelentésének értelmezése az elsődleges kérdés.
10 Végül, még akkor is, ha a menekültvédelem iránti kérelmet s. A 98. cikk és a kitoloncolási végzés kiadásakor a kérelmező továbbra is kérheti a minisztertől a kitoloncolási végzéssel szembeni védelmet. Annak meghatározásakor, hogy felfüggeszti-e a kitoloncolási végzést, a miniszternek egyensúlyba kell hoznia a kanadai lakosságot fenyegető minden veszélyt azzal a kockázattal, hogy a kérelmező halállal, kínzással vagy kegyetlen és szokatlan bánásmóddal vagy büntetéssel szembesül, ha Kanadából a kitoloncolási végzésben megjelölt helyre szállítják. (ss. 97, 112, 113(d)(i) and 114(1)(b) of the IRPA).
11 Parliament has incorporated Articles 1E and 1F of the Refugee Convention into s. 98 of theIRPA. Interpretation of an international treaty that has been directly incorporated into Canadian law is governed by Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Can. T.S. 1980 No. 37 (« Vienna Convention »): Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, at paras. 51-52; Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551, at pp. 577-78. It follows that the meaning of the incorporated Articles of the Refugee Conventionmust be determined in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
· (a) Leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; ou
13 Article 1F(b) excludes any person from refugee protection « with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: … he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee ».
14 Despite its facial clarity, the meaning of the phrase « has committed a serious non-political crime » is the subject of debate by courts and academic writers. While there are many variations of these debates, the main issue in the present case is whether « has committed a serious … crime » is confined to matters relating to the crime committed, or should be read as also referring to matters or events after the commission of the crime, such as whether the claimant is a fugitive from justice or is unmeritorious or dangerous at the time of the application for refugee protection. If Article 1F(b) is read as including consideration of matters occurring after the commission of the crime, people who have committed a serious crime in the past may nevertheless qualify as refugees because they have served their sentence or because of redeeming conduct subsequent to the crime.
15 Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention states how interpretation of the Refugee Convention should be approached — by considering: (1) the « ordinary meaning » of its terms; (2) the context; and (3) the object and purpose of the Refugee Convention. For the reasons that follow, these considerations, as well as the Collected Travaux Préparatoires of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1989), vol. III (« Travaux préparatoires ») and the jurisprudence, lead me to conclude that the phrase « has committed a serious … crime » refers to the crime at the time it was committed. Article 1F(b), in excluding from refugee protection people who have committed serious crimes in the past, does not exempt from this exclusion persons who are not fugitives from justice, or because of their rehabilitation, expiation or non-dangerousness at the time they claim refugee protection.
16 The point of departure for interpreting a provision of a treaty is the plain meaning of the text. As the House of Lords put it in Januzi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2006] UKHL 5, [2006] 2 A.C. 426, at para. 4, « the starting point of the construction exercise must be the text of the Convention itself, … because it expresses what the parties to it have agreed. The parties to an international convention are not to be treated as having agreed something they did not agree, unless it is clear by necessary implication from the text ».
17 The ordinary meaning of the terms used in Article 1F(b) — « has committed a serious … crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country… » — refers only to the crime at the time it was committed. The words do not refer to anything subsequent to the commission of the crime. There is nothing in the text of the provision suggesting that it only applies to fugitives, or that factors such as current lack of dangerousness or post-crime expiation or rehabilitation are to be considered or balanced against the seriousness of the crime.
18 The mandatory wording of the Article (« shall not apply ») chosen by the parties to theRefugee Convention unequivocally supports the view that all a subscribing country can consider in determining whether a claimant is excluded under Article 1F(b) is whether the claimant committed a serious crime outside the country of refuge prior to applying for refugee status there. Nothing in the words used suggests that the parties to the Refugee Conventionintended subsequent considerations, like rehabilitation, expiation and actual dangerousness, to be taken into account.
19 The second interpretive consideration is the context. The immediate context of Article 1F(b) is Article 1F as a whole. Article 1F is comprised of three provisions, each of which excludes certain classes of persons from the Refugee Convention’s protection. Article 1F(a) excludes anyone who has « committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity ». Article 1F(c) excludes anyone « guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations ».
20 Mr. Febles argues that this context suggests that Article 1F(b) is limited to fugitives. He appears to concede that Articles 1F(a) and 1F(c) are not themselves limited to fugitives, and that they operate to exclude all persons who have committed the acts listed in those provisions. Nevertheless, he argues that limiting Article 1F(b) to fugitives would not be incongruous. He submits that, unlike Article 1F(b), Articles 1F(a) and 1F(c) are designed to prevent people who are themselves persecutors from seeking protection from persecution, and that it would undermine the Refugee Convention’s viability if persecutors who create refugees could seek refugee protection. Persons who have committed serious crimes under Article 1F(b) are in a different situation, Mr. Febles argues. It would not undermine the Refugee Convention’s viability to allow non-fugitives who have already served sentences for standard crimes to seek refugee protection. On this basis, he invites this Court to confine Article 1F(b) to fugitives from justice.
21 Against this, the Minister argues that the word « committed » should be given the same meaning in Articles 1F(a) and 1F(b): these provisions apply to anyone who has ever committed the offences, not only to fugitives or some other subset of those persons who have in fact committed the described offences.
22 I agree. I cannot accept Mr. Febles’ argument that Articles 1F(a) and 1F(c) support the view that the exclusion from refugee protection under Article 1F(b) is confined to fugitives. There is nothing in the wording of these provisions or in the jurisprudence to support this contention. (See Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 678, at paras. 38 and 101, and Pushpanathan, at paras. 65-66 and 70 where the scope of these articles is discussed.) While Article 1F(c) uses the word « guilty », Articles 1F(a) and 1F(b) both use the word « committed ».
23 The immediate context therefore supports the Minister’s interpretation. It would be anomalous if the word « committed » were ascribed different meanings in Articles 1F(a) and 1F(b) and the use of consistent language in these two articles was meant to evince an intention on the part of the drafters that they be applied inconsistently. As nobody has suggested that Article 1F(a) is confined to fugitives, it follows that Article 1F(b) would similarly not be restricted to fugitives.
24 Mr. Febles also says that Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention supports the view that Article 1F(b) is confined to fugitives. Article 33(2) allows a host country to expel a refugee who has been « convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime » and « constitutes a danger to the community of that country ». As far as Refugee Convention provisions go, Article 1F(b) only applies to crimes committed outside the country of refuge, whereas a refugee who commits a crime in the country of refuge can only be expelled under Article 33(2). Mr. Febles argues that this results in an absurdity. Why should someone who has served his sentence for a crime committed outside the country of refuge be automatically disentitled to refugee protection, when someone who commits a serious crime inside the country of refuge is allowed to retain refugee protection absent a danger to the public? This apparent absurdity disappears, Mr. Febles says, if Article 1F(b) is read as being restricted to fugitives.
25 Again, the argument fails to persuade. Article 33(2) is an exception to the Article 33(1) principle of non-refoulement of persons whose need for protection has been recognized (or not yet adjudicated). That is why the drafters used different language in Article 33(2) than they did in Article 1F(b): Article 33(2) allows persons to nevertheless be removed in the exceptional circumstances it describes, including in the event of particularly serious crimes, and « danger to the community ».
26 That the Refugee Convention drafters intended that persons who commit crimes in the country of refuge be treated differently than those who commit crimes outside the country of refuge prior to claiming refugee protection makes sense. When a person commits a crime inside the country of refuge, the country of refuge is called to rely on its own sovereign legal system, rather than on an international treaty. In Canada’s case, it has done so by enacting a parallel and virtually identical provision regarding the effect of commission of a crime: s. 101(2)(a) of theIRPA specifies that a refugee protection claim cannot be made in the event « of a conviction in Canada [where] the conviction is for an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years ». Therefore, the discrepancy and resultant absurdity contended by Mr. Febles do not exist. In any event, different concerns arise when a country is asked to take in claimants who have committed crimes abroad, and the context provided by Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention does not aid in the interpretive task at hand.
27 The purposes of the Refugee Convention include the international community’s « profound concern for refugees » and commitment to « assure refugees the widest possible exercise of … fundamental rights and freedoms »: see Ezokola, at para. 32, and Pushpanathan, at para. 57. While Article 1F(b) has a more specific exclusionary purpose, that purpose must be consistent with the broader protective aims of the Refugee Convention.
28 Mr. Febles argues that broad construction of exclusion provisions risks subverting theRefugee Convention’s humanitarian aims — courts should accordingly construe exclusion provisions as narrowly as is possible while still preserving the viability of the Refugee Convention.
29 The problem with this approach is that it risks upsetting the balance between humane treatment of victims of oppression and the other interests of signatory countries, which they did not renounce simply by together making certain provisions to aid victims of oppression. TheRefugee Convention is not itself an abstract principle, but an agreement among sovereign states in certain specified terms, negotiated by them in consideration of the entirety of their interests. In R. (European Roma Rights Centre) v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport, [2004] UKHL 55, [2005] 2 A.C. 1, the U.K. House of Lords stated that the Refugee Convention »represent[s] a compromise between competing interests, in this case between the need to ensure humane treatment of the victims of oppression on the one hand and the wish of sovereign states to maintain control over those seeking entry to their territory on the other » (para. 15).
30 I agree with this statement of the Refugee Convention’s twin purposes. While exclusion clauses should not be enlarged in a manner inconsistent with the Refugee Convention’s broad humanitarian aims, neither should overly narrow interpretations be adopted which ignore the contracting states’ need to control who enters their territory. Nor do a treaty’s broad purposes alter the fact that the purpose of an exclusion clause is to exclude. In short, broad purposes do not invite interpretations of exclusion clauses unsupported by the text.
31 For these reasons, I conclude that consideration of the purposes of the Refugee Convention as a whole do not support Mr. Febles’ argument that Article 1F(b) is confined to fugitives.
33 The Minister counters that the main rationale for Article 1F(b) is the exclusion of serious criminals because persons who have committed serious offences are by definition undeserving of refugee protection, supported by a secondary rationale of protection of the host society. By the Minister’s interpretation, determination of a crime’s seriousness requires an evaluation of the elements of the crime, the mode of prosecution, the penalty prescribed, the facts and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances underlying the conviction, but does not include post-offence considerations. A person who commits a serious non-political crime is forever barred from claiming refugee protection. This interpretation was adopted by the courts below, and was recently endorsed by the European Court of Justice.
34 The UNHCR argues that Article 1F(b) has two purposes — exclusion of fugitives and exclusion of claimants undeserving of refugee protection at the time it is claimed. If a person has committed a crime within the scope of Article 1F(b), but has since served a sentence commensurate with that criminal conduct or has been otherwise rehabilitated, the decision maker on the refugee application must in each case determine whether such a person isdeserving of refugee protection at that time, having regard to: the passage of time since the commission of the offence; the seriousness of the offence (and whether it can be characterized as « truly heinous »); the age at which the person committed the crime; the conduct of the individual since then; whether the individual has expressed regret or renounced criminal activities; and whether the individual poses a threat to the community or security of the receiving state. Justice Abella similarly suggests that for all but « very » serious crimes, expiation and rehabilitation must be considered (para. 74).
35 I cannot accept the arguments of Mr. Febles and the UNHCR on the purposes of Article 1F(b). I conclude that Article 1F(b) serves one main purpose — to exclude persons who have committed a serious crime. This exclusion is central to the balance the Refugee Conventionstrikes between helping victims of oppression by allowing them to start new lives in other countries and protecting the interests of receiving countries. Article 1F(b) is not directed solely at fugitives and neither is it directed solely at some subset of serious criminals who are undeserving at the time of the refugee application. Rather, in excluding all claimants who have committed serious non-political crimes, Article 1F(b) expresses the contracting states’ agreement that such persons by definition would be undeserving of refugee protection by reason of their serious criminality.
36 Excluding people who have committed serious crimes may support a number of subsidiary rationales — it may prevent people fleeing from justice; it may prevent dangerous and particularly undeserving people from entering the host country. However, Article 1F(b) cannot be confined to any of these subsidiary purposes. Excluding people who have committed crimes in other countries prior to seeking refugee protection may serve other state interests. It may help preserve the integrity and legitimacy of the refugee protection system, and, hence, the necessary public support for its viability. It may deter states from exporting criminals by pardoning them or imposing disproportionately lenient sentences while supporting their departure elsewhere as refugees. Finally, it may allow states to reduce the danger to their society from all serious criminality cases taken together, given the difficult task and potential for error when attempting to determine whether criminals from abroad (on whom they have more limited sources of information than on domestic criminals) are no longer dangerous. Whatever rationales for Article 1F(b) may or may not exist, its purpose is clear in excluding persons from protection who previously committed serious crimes abroad.
37 Besides the arguments already addressed, Mr. Febles argues that the Travaux préparatoires to the Refugee Convention (the working documents preceding the Refugee Convention’s adoption) support his view that Article 1F(b) is confined to fugitives. Acknowledging that the Travaux préparatoires »do not provide any ‘hard answers' », he nonetheless says that they generally support this inference.
38 As discussed, Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention provides for interpretation of treaty provisions in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the terms in their context and in light of the treaty’s object and purpose. Article 32 only allows for recourse to « supplementary means of interpretation » — including the Travaux préparatoires — in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31 leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
39 These conditions for use of the Travaux préparatoires are not present in this case. With great respect to Justice Abella’s contrary view, the meaning of Article 1F(b) is clear, and admits of no ambiguity, obscurity or absurd or unreasonable result. Therefore, theTravaux préparatoires should not be considered.
40 In any event, the Travaux préparatoires support the Minister’s interpretation rather than Mr. Febles’ reading of Article 1F(b). In the case B (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) (2008), BVerwG 10 C 48.07, OVG 8 A 2632/06.A, both the German Federal Administrative Court and the European Court of Justice, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. B., [2010] EUECJ C-57/09, reviewed the Travaux préparatoires and concluded that the aim of the drafters was to protect the dignity of refugee status by excluding serious criminals from such status. The Court of Appeal in this case similarly concluded that « it is clear from the Travaux Préparatoires that the drafters did not intend to limit the exclusion provision to fugitives from justice » (2012 FCA 324, 442 N.R. 290, at para. 62).
41 Mr. Febles points to statements made by certain delegates that he says support his interpretation when taken in context, but on a review of the Travaux préparatoires as a whole, no concluded intention to that effect emerges. Indeed, the French delegate stressed the need to distinguish between bona fide refugees and non-political criminals, and added that « refugees whose actions might bring discredit on that status » should be excluded (Travaux préparatoires, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.29, at 19).
42 Accordingly, I conclude that the Travaux préparatoires do not assist Mr. Febles’ position.
44 I will first consider this Court’s obiter dicta in Ward and Pushpanathan to the extent that these are read as suggesting that Article 1F(b) is confined to fugitives. I will then review the international and Federal Court jurisprudence. A review of the jurisprudence demonstrates the difficulty of confining Article 1F(b) to a narrow category of people, like fugitives from justice, and confirms that it applies, as its words suggest, to anyone who has ever committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee.
45 In Ward, the Court was concerned with what the meaning is of « membership in a particular social group or political opinion », corresponding to the terms of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. In obiter, La Forest J. made this brief comment regarding Article 1F(b):
· Hathaway would appear to confine paragraph (b) to accused persons who are fugitives from prosecution. The interpretation of this amendment was not argued before us. I note, however, that Professor Hathaway’s interpretation seems to be consistent with the views expressed in the Travaux préparatoires, regarding the need for congruence between the Convention and extradition law. [p. 743]
· In the amended Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, Parliament has further responded to the concern of keeping out dangerous and criminal claimants by excluding from the definition of « Convention refugee » in s. 2 of the Act any person to whom the Convention does not apply pursuant to s. E or F of Art. 1. [p. 742]
47 In Pushpanathan, this Court was concerned not with Article 1F(b), but with Article 1F(c), which excludes from protection those guilty of crimes contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Bastarache J., discussing the potential for overlap between Articles 1F(b) and 1F(c), suggested in obiter that Article 1F(b) was limited to « ordinary criminals extraditable by treaty » (para. 73). Bastarache J. gave no reasons for interpreting the clause as limited to extraditable fugitives, and the only authority cited at that section of the reasons is Professor G. S. Goodwin-Gill’s The Refugee in International Law (2nd ed. 1996). Under the heading The drafting history of article 1F(b), Goodwin-Gill’s text contains a phrase identical to that used by Bastarache J.: « The IRO Constitution excluded refugees who were ‘ordinary criminals … extraditable by treaty' » (p.101 (emphasis added)).
48 It may therefore bear note that the more recent version of Professor Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam’s text (The Refugee in International Law (3rd ed. 2007)), under the title The relation to extradition, observes as follows:
· [T]he « fugitives from justice » thesis appears to be on the wain, as being inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the words. It is one thing to say that those seeking to escape prosecution for serious non-political crimes should not be recognized as refugees; but quite another to say that only such fugitives come within the scope of article 1F(b). [Emphasis in original; p. 175.]
50 In T. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1996] 2 All E.R. 865, the U.K. House of Lords discussed the purpose of Article 1F generally and indicated that the purpose of Article 1F(b) was not limited to exclusion of fugitives. Rather, Article 1F(b) recognizes that there are those « whose criminal habits ma[ke] it unreasonable for them to be forced on to a host nation against its will » (p. 875). More recently, the U.K. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) confirmed that Article 1F(b) is not confined to fugitives in AH (Algeria) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2013] UKUT 00382 (IAC) (para. 97).
51 Similar reasoning has been adopted in Australia. In Dhayakpa v. Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, [1995] FCA 1653, 62 F.C.R. 556, French J. of the Australian Federal Court stated that « [t]he exemption in Article 1F(b) … is protective of the order and safety of the receiving State » (para. 29). Dhayakpa was subsequently affirmed in Ovcharuk v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, [1998] FCA 1314, 88 F.C.R. 173, where the Australian Federal Court specifically declined to follow this Court’s dicta in Ward and Pushpanathan that Article 1F(b) applied only to fugitives (pp. 6 and 13).
52 The leading Australian case is Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Singh, [2002] HCA 7, 209 C.L.R. 533. Kirby J. made an extensive survey of the applicable principles of international law, and the context, object and purposes of the Refugee Convention. While he acknowledged the Refugee Convention’s humanitarian objectives and the « heavy burdens » it imposes on the contracting states (para. 94), he also found that the Refugee Conventionrepresented a compromise between competing purposes:
53 In Attorney-General (Minister of Immigration) v. Tamil X, [2010] NZSC 107, 1 N.Z.L.R. 721, the Supreme Court of New Zealand stated that two purposes underlie Article 1F(b): (1) to prevent fugitives from avoiding punishment for their crimes; and (2) to protect the security of states. The court made clear that the language of Article 1F(b) « cannot … be read as confining exclusion to those who are fugitives from justice » (para. 82).
54 In B (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), both the German Federal Administrative Court and the European Court of Justice held that current dangerousness is not relevant to the application of Article 1F(b). While the claimants in B (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice)were fugitives, both courts went on to discuss the general purpose and scope of both Articles 1F(b) and (c) and suggested that the exclusions apply to anyone who has ever committed the acts referenced in those provisions. After examining the Travaux préparatoires of the Refugee Convention, the German Federal Administrative Court held that the dominant purpose of Article 1F(b) is to « protect refugee status from abuse, by keeping it from being granted to undeserving applicants » and to « prevent refugee status from being discredited by including criminals in the group of recognised refugees » (paras. 29-30). The European Court of Justice stated that Article 1F(b) operates as « a penalty for acts committed in the past » (para. 103) and was « introduced with the aim of excluding from refugee status persons who are deemed to be undeserving of the protection which that status entails » (para. 104). In other words, Article 1F(b) is aimed at excluding from refugee status persons who have committed a serious crime, regardless of what may have happened since.
55 I cannot agree with Justice Abella when she says that B (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) « said nothing about whether — or the extent to which — Article 1F(b) deals with non fugitives » (para. 120). To the contrary, the European Court of Justice, at paras. 100-5, made it clear that Articles 1F(b) and 1F(c) operate in the same way: to preserve the dignity of refugee status by excluding anyone who has ever committed the acts listed in those provisions. Indeed, even the appellant properly concedes that « a number of the propositions [in the European Court’s reasoning] seem to suggest that the Article [1F(b)] applies without limit » (A.F., at para. 78).
57 And in France, the Conseil d’État has stated that, while protection of the host society is, besides exclusion of fugitives, a rationale for Article 1F(b), a claimant who has served his sentence for a serious crime should not be excluded unless it is found, on the basis of something more than the fact that an Article 1F(b) crime was committed, that he would represent a danger to the public (Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides v. Hykaj, No. 320910, May 4, 2011).
58 The Federal Court of Appeal, confronted with this array of jurisprudence, has inclined to the view of the High Court of Australia and the European Court of Justice in a series of cases that includes Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 404, [2009] 4 F.C.R. 164, and the decision under appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal has not followed the obiter statements in Ward and Pushpanathan and has held that sentence completion does not « allow [a claimant] to avoid the application of Article 1F(b) » (Jayasekara, at para. 57).
59 I conclude that the dominant tide of the jurisprudence is inconsistent with the conclusion that Article 1F(b) operates so as to exclude only fugitives, as well as with the proposition that post-crime conduct must be balanced against the crime’s seriousness. Of particular note, none of the international courts accept the dicta in Ward and Pushpanathan that exclusion of fugitives is the only rationale for Article 1F(b). In my view, the Ward and Pushpanathan obiter statements should no longer be followed.
How Should a Crime’s Seriousness Be Assessed?
61 The appellant concedes that his crimes were « serious » when they were committed, obviating the need to discuss what constitutes a « serious … crime » under Article 1F(b). However, a few comments on the question may be helpful.
63 Mr. Febles’ final argument is that his suggested interpretation of Article 1F(b) should be adopted because it creates harmony within the IRPA and ensures consistency with the Charter. This argument conflates two different interpretive exercises.
64 As discussed, Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention is part of an international treaty, the meaning of which is not affected by provisions of the IRPA. However, the Board is bound by theIRPA, and not by the Refugee Convention itself. Parliament has the power to pass legislation that complies with Canada’s obligations under the Refugee Convention, or to pass legislation that either exceeds or falls short of the Refugee Convention’s protections. In this case, therefore, there are two separate inquiries. First, what does Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Conventionmean? For this first inquiry, the statutory scheme and the Charter are not relevant. Second, what does s. 98 of the IRPA mean? For this second inquiry, the domestic statutory context and theCharter are potentially relevant.
66 Section 98 of the IRPA expressly incorporates Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention, stating: « A person referred to in section E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection ». As such, it is clear that Parliament’s intent was for s. 98 to exclude from refugee protection in Canada all persons falling under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention. There is nothing in the scheme of the IRPA as a whole that indicates a contrary intention.
67 There is similarly no role to play for the Charter in interpreting s. 98 of the IRPA. Where Parliament’s intent for a statutory provision is clear and there is no ambiguity, the Charter cannot be used as an interpretive tool to give the legislation a meaning which Parliament did not intend:Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, at paras. 61-2. Moreover, as the Court of Appeal held, s. 98 of the IRPA is consistent with the Charter. As stated at para. 10 of these reasons, even if excluded from refugee protection, the appellant is able to apply for a stay of removal to a place if he would face death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if removed to that place (ss. 97, 112, 113(d)(i) and 114(1)(b) of theIRPA). On such an application, the Minister would be required to balance the risks faced by the appellant if removed against the danger the appellant would present to the Canadian public if not removed (s. 113(d) of the IRPA). Section 7 of the Charter may also prevent the Minister from issuing a removal order to a country where Charter-protected rights may be in jeopardy: Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, at para. 58.
71 ABELLA J. (dissenting):– In the wake of the mass persecution and displacement of persons during World War II, the international community responsively consolidated and entrenched international protection for refugees through the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 6 (Refugee Convention).
74 Article 1F sets out the grounds for excluding an individual from the status of « refugee ». The claim for refugee status in this case depends on a determination of when the commission of a serious non-political crime in accordance with Article 1F(b) will disqualify an individual from the protective scope of the Refugee Convention. With great respect, I draw a different interpretive conclusion than does the majority. While Articles 1F(a) and (c) represent absolute barriers to refugee status, the human rights approach to interpretation mandated by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Can. T.S. 1980 No. 37 (Vienna Convention), suggests a less draconian interpretation of Article 1F(b). In my view, except in the case of very serious crimes, an individual should not automatically be disqualified from the humanitarian protection of theRefugee Convention under this provision and should be entitled to have any expiation or rehabilitation taken into account.
77 On July 2, 1984, Mr. Febles turned himself in to the police after having struck someone on the head with a hammer while the victim was sleeping. He had consumed alcohol at the time of the offence. On November 20, 1984, Mr. Febles pleaded guilty to « assault … with deadly weapon … other than a firearm » under the Penal Code of California (s. 245(a)(1)), and was sentenced to two years in prison and three years of probation.
78 The second offence occurred on October 3, 1993, when Mr. Febles uttered threats while pointing a knife at someone. Mr. Febles pleaded guilty to « assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm ». He was sentenced to two years in prison and three years of probation.
83 On October 14, 2010, the Board’s Refugee Protection Division heard Mr. Febles’ claim for refugee protection. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness filed a notice to intervene, arguing that Mr. Febles should be excluded from the definition of refugee under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention because he had committed a serious non-political crime. Mr. Febles’ position was that he had served his sentences, was now rehabilitated, and posed no danger to Canada.
85 Mr. Febles’ application for judicial review was dismissed by both the Federal Court, 2011 FC 1103, 397 F.T.R. 179, and Federal Court of Appeal, 2012 FCA 324, 442 N.R. 290. For the following reasons, I would allow the appeal and remit the matter to the Board for redetermination.
86 Article 1F of the Refugee Convention excludes three categories of individuals from the protective scope of its provisions by limiting the definition of a « refugee »:
87 The consequences of exclusion under Article 1F are significant. If an individual becomes ineligible for the status of a « refugee » on the basis of one of those exclusionary grounds, the humanitarian protections provided in the Refugee Convention are denied altogether, including the protection from refoulement under Article 33. An excluded individual is consequently at risk of being returned to face persecution in his or her country of origin, barring the availability of any residual protection under domestic or international human rights law.
88 Parliament incorporated Article 1F into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. Section 95 of the Act states that refugee protection is conferred on an individual where the Immigration and Refugee Board « determines the person to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection ». Section 98 carves out an exception for persons covered by Article 1F.
90 Among other interpretive methods, Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention provides that subsequent practice among the signatory states is relevant to context in the interpretive exercise where that practice « establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation »; see also Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 649, at para. 21. Article 32 provides that recourse may be had to the travaux préparatoires of a treaty as a supplementary means of interpretation « in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31 », or where the application of Article 31 results in ambiguity or a result which is « manifestly absurd or unreasonable »: Peracomo Inc. v. TELUS Communications Co., 2014 SCC 29, at para. 100.
· [The Vienna Convention rules on treaty interpretation] have been applied by this Court in two recent cases, one involving direct incorporation of treaty provisions (Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551) and another involving a section of the Immigration Act intended to implement Canada’s obligations under the Convention (Ward, supra). In the latter case, La Forest J. makes use of several interpretative devices: the drafting history of, and preparatory work on the provision in question; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (« UNHCR Handbook »), and previous judicial comment on the purpose and object of the treaty. Indeed, at p. 713, La Forest J. was willing to consider submissions of individual delegations in the travaux préparatoires, although he recognized that, depending on their content and on the context, such statements « may not go far » in supporting one interpretation over another.
· [A] priori denial of the fundamental protections of a treaty whose purpose is the protection of human rights is a drastic exception for the purposes of the Convention […] and can only be justified where the protection of those rights is furthered by the exclusion. [paras. 53 and 74]
92 In light of the human rights purposes of the Refugee Convention and the dramatic consequences of exclusion from the status of a refugee, Article 1F requires a particularly cautious interpretation: Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2013] 2 S.C.R. 678, at paras. 31-36; Pushpanathan, at para. 57; see also Al-Sirri v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2012] UKSC 54, [2013] 1 A.C. 745, at paras. 12 and 16; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), « Guidelines on International Protection: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees », HCR/GIP/03/05, September 4, 2003 (online) at para. 2 (UNHCR Guidelines).
· The preamble to the Refugee Convention highlights the international community’s « profound concern for refugees » and its commitment « to assure refugees the widest possible exercise of … fundamental rights and freedoms ». Our approach to art. 1F(a) must reflect this « overarching and clear human rights object and purpose ». [para. 32, citing Pushpanathan, at para. 57]
94 In Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, La Forest J. explained how the animating human rights purposes of the Refugee Convention inform the interpretation of the elements of the definition of « Convention refugee »:
· Underlying the Convention is the international community’s commitment to the assurance of basic human rights without discrimination. This is indicated in the preamble to the treaty as follows:
· This theme outlines the boundaries of the objectives sought to be achieved and consented to by the delegates. It sets out, in a general fashion, the intention of the drafters and thereby provides an inherent limit to the cases embraced by the Convention. Hathaway … thus explains the impact of this general tone of the treaty on refugee law:
· This theme sets the boundaries for many of the elements of the definition of « Convention refugee ». [p. 733]
· The rationale is that those who are responsible for the persecution which creates refugees should not enjoy the benefits of a Convention designed to protect those refugees. As La Forest J. observes in Ward, supra, at p. 733, « actions which deny human dignity in any key way » and « the sustained or systemic denial of core human rights … se[t] the boundaries for many of the elements of the definition of ‘Convention refugee' ». This purpose has been explicitly recognized by the Federal Court of Appeal in the context of the grounds specifically enumerated in Article 1F(a) in Sivakumar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 433, where Linden J.A. stated (at p. 445): « When the tables are turned on persecutors, who suddenly become the persecuted, they cannot claim refugee status. International criminals, on all sides of the conflicts, are rightly unable to claim refugee status. [para. 63]
· The purpose of Article 1 is to define who is a refugee. Article 1F then establishes categories of persons who are specifically excluded from that definition. The purpose of Article 33 of the Convention, by contrast, is not to define who is and who is not a refugee, but rather to allow for the refoulement of abona fide refugee to his or her native country where he or she poses a danger to the security of the country of refuge, or to the safety of the community. This functional distinction is reflected in the Act, which adopts Article 1F as part of s. 2, the definitional section, and provides for the Minister’s power to deport an admitted refugee under s. 53, which generally incorporates Article 33. Thus, the general purpose of Article 1F is not the protection of the society of refuge from dangerous refugees, whether because of acts committed before or after the presentation of a refugee claim; that purpose is served by Article 33 of the Convention. Rather, it is to exclude ab initio those who are not bona fide refugees at the time of their claim for refugee status. Although all of the acts described in Article 1F could presumably fall within the grounds for refoulement described in Article 33, the two are distinct… . [Emphasis added; para. 58.]
· The rationale for the exclusion clauses, which should be borne in mind when considering their application, is that certain acts are so grave as to render their perpetrators undeserving of international protection as refugees. Their primary purpose is to deprive those guilty of heinous acts, and serious common crimes, of international refugee protection and to ensure that such persons do not abuse the institution of asylum in order to avoid being held legally accountable for their acts. The exclusion clauses must be applied « scrupulously » to protect the integrity of the institution of asylum, as is recognised by UNHCR’s Executive Committee in Conclusion No. 82 (XLVIII), 1997. At the same time, given the possible serious consequences of exclusion, it is important to apply them with great caution and only after a full assessment of the individual circumstances of the case. The exclusion clauses should, therefore, always be interpreted in a restrictive manner. [Emphasis added; para. 2.].
98 Broadly speaking, then, Article 1F operates to maintain the integrity of the system of international refugee protection and the status of being a « refugee ». The parties to theRefugee Convention recognized this important function in their 2001 Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/MMSP/2001/09 (Declaration of States), where the signatories reaffirmed their commitment
· … to continue their efforts aimed at ensuring the integrity of the asylum institution,inter alia, by means of carefully applying Articles 1F and 33(2) of the 1951 Convention, in particular in light of new threats and challenges… . [Emphasis added; p.3]
99 In order to screen individuals who are not « bona fide refugees », the application of Article 1F of the Refugee Convention operates to protect the integrity of the international refugee protection by excluding individuals who, as a result of having committed such « heinous acts, and serious common crimes », are themselves considered undeserving of the status of refugee: UNHCR Guidelines, at para. 2; Pushpanathan, at para. 63; Ezokola, at para. 34.
100 The particular exclusion under scrutiny in this appeal is the one in Article 1F(b), which excludes individuals from the Refugee Convention where there « are serious reasons for considering that … he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee ».
101 There is little doubt that the primary purpose of Article 1F(b) was to exclude those individuals who would abuse the status of a refugee by avoiding accountability through prosecution or punishment for a serious crime outside the country of refuge. For the clause to apply, the crime must have been committed « outside the country of refuge prior to his [or her] admission to that country as a refugee ». This territorial limitation has been relied on as a strong textual indication that Article 1F(b) was intended to exclude those individuals who seek to abuse the status of being a refugee by evading prosecution in another jurisdiction: James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (2nd ed. 2014), at p. 544. Further support for this interpretation emerges from the surrounding context of Article 1F(b), the UNHCR Guidelines, at para. 2, the interpretation of Article 1F(b) adopted in other jurisdictions, and the drafting history and travaux préparatoires of the Refugee Convention. See also Pushpanathan, at para. 73; Ward, at p. 743.
104 The Preamble of the Refugee Convention directs that the contracting parties « revise and consolidate previous international agreements » relating to the rights of refugees, and « extend the scope of and the protection accorded by such instruments by means of a new agreement ».
105 The « previous international agreements » referred to in the Preamble each denied refugee protection for individuals who had committed crimes in other countries prior to entering the country of refuge and had yet to be prosecuted and punished for those crimes: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (Universal Declaration) (adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 10, 1948); Constitution of the International Refugee Organization, August 20, 1948, 18 U.N.T.S. 3, Ann. I, Part II (excluding « [o]rdinary criminals who are extraditable by treaty »); Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, G.A. Res. 428(V) of December 14, 1950, p. 7 (excluding persons who had committed a « crime covered by the provisions of treaties of extradition »).
106 Moreover, in reaffirming their commitment to international refugee protection, the signatories declared in 2001 that the Refugee Convention is « consistent with Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights »: Declaration of States, adopted by the U.N. G.A. A/RES/57/187, at para. 4, December 18, 2001. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration deals with an individual’s right of asylum from persecution:
107 Article 14(2) is also significant because it was central to the discussions by states’ representatives at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons in Geneva in July 1951 (Conference of Plenipotentiaries). I agree that the import of thetravaux préparatoires with respect to Article 1F(b) is not obvious. But I do not agree, with respect, that the travaux préparatoires provide no insight of significance into the issues before us. In my view, the widely divergent interpretations of Article 1F(b) adopted by courts in other jurisdictions and the uncertainty created by the territorial limits described in Article 1F(b), mandate recourse to the interpretive assistance of the preparatory work.
109 At the Conference of Plenipotentiaries, the representative for the United Kingdom prompted discussion by proposing that the reference to Article 14(2) should be deleted altogether. In his view, incorporating Article 14(2) was entirely unnecessary in light of the provision in the draft Refugee Convention — what eventually became Article 33(2) — which permitted signatories to « refoule » refugees who posed a danger or threat to the country of refuge.
110 Nonetheless, some states — particularly France and Yugoslavia — were opposed to deleting the reference to Article 14(2) from the draft. France expressed a concern that there was a need to preserve the distinction between « ordinary common-law criminals » and « bona fiderefugees » with respect to whether the individual was eligible for the status of a refugee under theRefugee Convention (Conference of Plenipotentiaries, Summary Record of the Twenty-fourth Meeting (Plenipotentiaries), U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 2/SR. 24 (1951)). The French representative argued that signatories to the Convention should not be required to grant refugee status to an individual who had no right of asylum within the meaning of Article 14(2) since asylum « was the conditio sine qua non of the possession of [refugee] status » (Plenipotentiaries, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 2/S.R. 29 (1951)).
111 Notably, the representative from the United Kingdom confirmed that Article 14(2) « was intended to apply to persons who were fugitives from prosecution in another country for non-political crimes » (Plenipotentiaries, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 2/S.R. 29 (1951)), and the language ought more clearly to reflect this. None of the representatives disagreed with this position. This is not surprising, given that, as in the other previous international agreements noted above, the underlying assumption was that Article 14(2) restricted refugee protection for individuals who remained criminally liable abroad: Atle Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law (1966, vol. I, Refugee Character, at p. 290. The UK representative also suggested that the language of Article 14(2) be modified so as to ensure that refugees who had committed trivial or minor crimes « should not thereby be placed once and for all beyond the reach of the Convention » (Plenipotentiaries, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 2/S.R. 24 (1951)).
113 Since it was apparent that the U.K.’s proposal to delete Article 14(2) was not broadly supported, the representatives turned their attention to revising its exclusionary language. France and Yugoslavia were of the view that the exclusion clause should only relate to crimes committed before entry into the territory of the receiving country. France also emphasized that the term « crime » must be distinguished from « misdemeanour », and proposed that the clause refer only to « serious crimes » (Plenipotentiaries, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 2/S.R. 29 (1951)). In describing the « vital » necessity of retaining the provision, the representative from France emphasized the need for a provision which would permit France to screen individuals at the border and grantasylum for some individuals on French territory, without having to confer on those individuals the status of a refugee (ibid.).
114 After some discussion, a variation proposed by Yugoslavia was ultimately adopted,1 and agreed to by the U.K.’s representative because
· … while he did not regard the revised Yugoslav amendment as entirely free from objection, [he] felt that it at least removed his … main objection to the text … as originally drafted, which would have made it too easy for States to withdraw the status of refugee from many persons who had been granted asylum from persecution. [Emphasis added; ibid.]
117 Turning to the interpretation adopted in other jurisdictions of Article 1F(b), it is widely accepted that the original purpose of Article 1F(b) was to deny refugee status to fugitives, namely, those individuals who had avoided prosecution for serious non-political crimes committed abroad. This was based on the premise that enabling those individuals to obtain refugee status would compromise the integrity of the international system of refugee protection. The European Court of Justice, in a decision about the interpretation of Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of the Directive 2004/83/EC of the Council of the European Union which incorporates Article 1F(b) and (c) into E.U. legislation, has recognized that one of the purposes of exclusion under those provisions is to prevent the status of being a refugee « from enabling those who have committed certain serious crimes to escape criminal liability » (Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. B. [2010] EUECJ C-57/09, at para. 104). See also Australia (SRYYY v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenuous Affairs, [2005] FCAFC 42, 220 A.L.R. 394); New Zealand (Attorney-General (Minister of Immigration) v. Tamil X, [2010] NZSC 107, [2011] 1 N.Z.L.R. 721, at para. 82 (Tamil X); the United Kingdom (AH (Algeria) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2013] UKUT 00382 (IAC)) (AH); and France (Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides v. Hykaj, No. 320910, May 4, 2011).
120 The European Court of Justice concluded that it would be inconsistent with the purposes of exclusion « to make exclusion from refugee status conditional upon the existence of a present danger to the host Member State » (Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. B., at para. 104). The court held that the dangerousness of the individual is not considered under Article 12(2) of the European directive (incorporating Article 1F), but under the Articles of the directive which incorporate Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention (para. 101). Notably, this case said nothing about whether — or the extent to which — Article 1F(b) deals with non-fugitives. Nor did it conclude that it automatically excludes anyone who has ever committed a serious crime.
121 And still other jurisdictions have found that rehabilitation, the seriousness of the crime, and other factors relating to the individual circumstance of the claimant are relevant. In Belgium, in a case about a refugee claimant who had committed and completed sentences for past crimes abroad, the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers concluded that Article 1F(b) applied to exclude the individual from the Refugee Convention on the basis of the individual’s lack of remorse for very grave criminal conduct ( X v. Commissaire général aux refugiés et aux apatrides, No. 69656, Novembre 8, 2011). The Conseil du contentieux des étrangers observed that the decision to exclude the individual at issue had been reached on grounds which included an express reference to the « Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees » (Background Note) (online), prepared by the UNHCR in 2003, that the completion of a sentence for a crime may be considered a relevant form of expiation, and that other factors such as the gravity of the offence and the claimant’s age and remorsefulness must also be considered. But in cases involving truly heinous crimes, exclusion under Article 1F(b) will be mandated even where the claimant has completed a sentence for a crime committed and demonstrated remorse (XXX v. État belge, No. 199.079, A. 192.074/XI-16.797 Conseil d’État (Section du contentieux administratif), December 18, 2009; 27.479, Conseil du contentieux des étrangers), May 18, 2009).
122 In the United Kingdom, earlier decisions of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal took a literal approach to the words of Article 1F(b) and rejected an interpretation in which expiation (understood as « punishment, pardon, or amnesty » or « remorse or change of heart ») is relevant to determining whether past criminal conduct is a basis for exclusion under Article 1F(b): KK (Turkey) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2004] UKIAT 00101, at para 92);Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AA (Palestine), [2005] UKIAT 00104, at paras. 59-62. Instead, the Tribunal considered it should instead apply the words of Article 1F(b) « exactly as they are written » (KK, at para. 92).
123 But recently, a more generous approach has been taken to the interpretation of Article 1F « because of the serious consequences of excluding a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution from the protection of the Refugee Convention » [2010] 3 All E.R. 88). Al-Sirri at paras. 12 and 16; (R. (JS (Sri Lanka)) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2010] UKSC 15, [2010] 3 ALL E.R. 88).
124 In a recent decision involving a refugee claimant who had been convicted of and completed a sentence for a prior criminal offence, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) adopted a high threshold of seriousness for triggering Article 1F(b) where the individual had already completed a sentence for the crime, and left open the possibility that supervening events may be relevant to the analysis (AH). The Tribunal found that Article 1F(b) has two purposes: the « prevention of abuse of the asylum system by undermining extradition law or the mutual interest amongst states in prosecuting serious offenders », and to exclude « those who have demonstrated by their conduct they are not worthy of it » (para. 85). In determining whether an individual is « unworthy » on the basis of past conduct, the Tribunal found:
· … that limbs 1F(a) and (c) serve to illustrate the level of seriousness required to engage Article 1F(b); the genus of seriousness is at a common level throughout. Those who commit war crimes and acts against the principles and purposes of the United Nations are clear examples of people who are unworthy of protection. [Emphasis added; para. 86.]
· The French text of Article 1F(b) refers to « un crime grave » whereas that for Article 33 (2) refers to « un délit particulièrement grave ». A crime in French law is a more serious class of offence than a délit. According to Cornu’s Vocabulaire Juridique(9th edition) 2011, « crime » is a « transgression particulièrement grave ». We accept, however, that the classification of the offence in national law is not the issue (as it happens the offences of which the appellant was convicted in France were bothdélits). The point is rather that the focus on the use of the English word « crime » in both Articles loses the quality of seriousness reflected in the French word. It may be that the language of the French text is where the UNHCR and the commentators obtain the notion that serious crimes were once capital crimes. [para. 88]
126 On those facts, it was held that « personal participation in a conspiracy to promote terrorist violence can be a particularly serious crime for the purpose of Article 1F(b) » (para. 89). The Tribunal emphasized that « [w]e must search for the autonomous international meaning of the term rather than what might be purely national law concerns about what conduct should be penalised and sentencing policy » (para. 83). Seriousness is to be examined at the time the criminal acts were committed, but the Tribunal noted that events such as a pardon, or a final acquittal in the « supervening passage of time may be relevant to whether exclusion is justified » (para. 97).
127 The UNHCR’s « Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees », which « forms an integral part of UNHCR’s [position] » on the interpretation of Article 1F (UNHCR Guidelines), provides guidance of particular relevance:
· … it is arguable that an individual who has served a sentence should, in general, no longer be subject to the exclusion clause as he or she is not a fugitive from justice. Each case will require individual consideration, however, bearing in mind issues such as the passage of time since the commission of the offence, the seriousness of the offence, the age at which the crime was committed, the conduct of the individual since then, and whether the individual has expressed regret or renounced criminal activities. In the case of truly heinous crimes, it may be considered that such persons are still undeserving of international refugee protection and the exclusion clauses should still apply. This is more likely to be the case for crimes under Article 1F(a) or (c), than those falling under Article 1F(b). [Emphasis added; para. 73.].
130 The requisite good faith interpretive approach mandates not divorcing the text of Article 1F(b) from its human rights purpose. This is particularly so given the clear concern at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries that the basis for exclusion under Article 1F(b) should be restrictively written so that it would not be « too easy » for states to deny the humanitarian protections guaranteed by the Refugee Convention (Plenipotentiaries, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 2/S.R. 29 (1951)).
131 This means, as the UNHCR Guidelines state, that there is room for discretion to apply Article 1F(b) « only after a full assessment of the individual circumstances of the case » (para. 2 (emphasis added)). There is little or no authority for the proposition that everyone who has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge remains permanently undeserving of the Refugee Convention’s protection regardless of their supervening personal circumstances. Such a relentlessly exclusionary — and literal — approach would contradict both the « good faith » approach to interpretation required by the Vienna Convention as well as theRefugee Convention’s human rights purpose.
132 In my view, depending on the seriousness of the crime, if an individual is believed to have committed a serious non-political crime, the purpose of Article 1F(b) can be met where the individual’s circumstances reflect a sufficient degree of rehabilitation or expiation that the claimant ought not to be disqualified from the humanitarian protection of theRefugee Convention. The completion of a sentence, along with factors such as the passage of time since the commission of the offence, the age at which the crime was committed, and the individual’s rehabilitative conduct, will all be relevant. On the other hand, individuals who have committed such serious crimes that they must be considered undeserving of the status of being a refugee would be excluded.
134 In concluding that Mr. Febles was excluded from the Refugee Convention on the basis of Article 1F(b), the Board considered « only the crime committed in 1984, for which there is more information » and found that Mr. Febles had committed a « serious non-political crime » (para. 22). It observed that Mr. Febles had completed the sentence imposed for the offence committed in 1984, and that « it might appear unfair to the claimant that, although he served his sentence and took the second chance that life was offering him 17 years ago and chose to follow a straighter path, the crimes he committed many years ago are coming back to haunt him » (para. 24). The question it did not determine is whether this offence was so serious that Mr. Febles must be considered undeserving of the status of a refugee.
135 Mr. Febles expressed remorse immediately after the commission of the offence and turned himself in to the police. He pleaded guilty and served his sentence for his criminal conduct. He also admitted that he was suffering from problems with alcohol at the time of the offence. While it is clear that the criminal conduct was serious, what has yet to be determined is whether the crime is so serious that Mr. Febles’ personal circumstances since serving his sentence in 1984 ought to be disregarded in considering whether he is entitled to refugee status.
PrécédentAssurance RC Pro : Beaucoup de médicaments chers