Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T22:06:33.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regina V. Finta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Irwin Cotler
Irwin Cotler*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 460 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R.S.C., ch. 30, §1 (3d Supp. 1985) (Can.).

2 73 Can. Crim. Cas. 3d 65 (Ont. C.A. 1992).

3 69 O.R.2d 557 (H.C. 1989).

4 Unlike its counterparts in other jurisdictions, the Canadian Criminal Code provides for appeals from jury acquittals. It empowers an appeal court to sustain the acquittal and dismiss the appeal where it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred, even if the trial judgment could be set aside on grounds of an error of law. The Code also empowers the court to allow the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and order a new trial: R.S.C., ch. C–46, §686(4) (1985).

5 1994 S.C.B. 1074.

6 1994 S.C.B. 1963.

7 Declaration of the Ninth International Conference of American States, May 2, 1948, 6 Ninth Conference of American States, Acts and Documents 289 (1953).

8 Canadian Dep’t of Justice, press release, Federal Government Announces WWII Crimes Strategy, and background paper, The Investigation of War Crimes in Canada (Jan. 31, 1995).

9 Press release, supra note 8, at 1.

10 Background paper, supra note 8, at 8.

11 [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701, 805.

12 Can. Const. (Constitution Act, 1982) pt. I (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

13 8 Halsbury’s Laws of England, para. 838 (4th ed. 1974).

14 Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 47, at 47:58. See also Nos. 41, at 41:99; 41a, at 41a:1–2; and 47, at 47:57–59.

15 Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, Report—Part I: Public (1986) [hereinafter Deschénes Commission Report].

16 See François Chevrette, [Protection Upon Arrest or Detention and Against Retroactive Penal Law (Ss. 8, 9, 10(c), 11(e), (g) and (i)), in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary 291, 322–23 (Walter Tarnopolsky & Gérald-A. Beaudoin eds., 1982); and Gisèle Côté-Harper, Les Garantis juridiques et la Charte, 72 Formation Permanente 174–75 (1983).

17 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature Nov. 4, 1950, Art. 7, 213 UNTS 221.

18 Opened for signature Dec. 16, 1966, Art. 15, 999 UNTS 171.

19 Deschênes Commission Report, supra note 15, at 136–43, 146.

20 Id. at 132.

21 69 O.R.2d 557, 566–67 (quoting David H. Doherty, What’s Done Is Done: An Argument in Support of a Purely Prospective Application of the Charter of Rights, 26 Crim. Rep. 3d 121, 125 (1982)).

22 Id. at 567.

23 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 870.

24 Id.

25 Id. at 874 (quoting Hans Kelsen, Will the Judgement in the Nuremberg Trial Constitute a Precedent in International Law?, 1 Int’l L.Q. 153, 165 (1947)).

26 69 O.R.2d at 568.

27 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 870, 811, 823.

28 69 O.R.2d at 569.

29 Id. at 575.

30 M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law 147 (1992).

31 Id. at 148. See also L. C. Green, Canadian Law, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 59 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 217 (1988).

32 Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, July 29, 1899, 32 Stat. 1803, 1 Bevans 247.

33 Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, with Annex of Regulations, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 1 Bevans 631.

34 Id., Preamble (emphasis added). See also excerpt in Bassiouni, supra note 30, Documents Sections D–3 and D–5, at 634 and 638.

35 Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials (1949), quoted in [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 870.

36 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 736, 782–83.

37 1 Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal 218 (1947) [hereinafter International Military Tribunal].

38 Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann, 36 ILR 277, 283 (1962).

39 International Court of Justice, Statute Art. 38.

40 1 International Military Tribunal, supra note 37, at 65.

41 Bassiouni, supra note 30, at 287 (emphasis added).

42 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 807.

43 Id. at 811.

44 Id.

45 Id. at 751 (La Forest, J., dissenting).

46 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 812.

47 Id. at 813.

48 Id. at 814.

49 Id. at 815.

50 E.g., Scuttled U-Boats Case, 1 Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals [L.R.T.W.C.] 55, 64 (Brit. Military Ct., Hamburg, 1945) (7 years with 2 years remitted, i.e., 5 years); Re Killinger, 3 id. at 67, 67 (Brit. Military Ct., Wuppertal, 1945) (two sentences of 5 years, one sentence of 3 years); Re Gokel, 5 id. at 45, 47 (Brit. Military Court, Wuppertal, 1946) (one sentence of 10 years, two of 8 years, three of 4 years, one of 3 years, one of 2 years) (published 1947–49).

51 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 817.

52 Id. at 818.

53 Id. at 754 (La Forest, J., dissenting).

54 Id.

55 Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nurnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, Principle VII, [1950] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 374, 377, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1950/Add.1; The Law of War on Land: Being Part 3 of the Manual of Military Law 178 (British War Office, 1958) (stating commander is responsible if he knew or should have known of illegality committed or about to be committed and “fails to use the means at his disposal to ensure compliance with the law of war”).

56 The Queen v. Daniels, 1968 S.C.R. 517.

57 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 813–20 (Cory, J.).

58 The Queen v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, 41.

59 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 817.

60 See, e.g., Re Masao Kudo, and Re Ajiro Yamasaki, 15 L.R.T.W.C. 8 (Austl. Military Cts., Rabaul, 1946); Wolfsburg and Ruehen Children’s Home Case, 7 L.R.T.W.C. 81 (Brit. Military Ct., Helmstedt, 1946).

61 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 814, 816.

62 See, e.g., Re Neitz; Re Jung and Shurmacher; Re Holzer, Wiegel and Ossenbach, in Public Archives of Canada, Record Group 25 F3(d), vols. 2608–2609.

63 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 755 (La Forest, J., dissenting).

64 Id. at 756.

65 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 820.

66 Id.

67 Szegedi uj Nemzedék, Apr. 9, 1994, quoted in id. at 817.

68 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 820.

69 Id. at 821.

70 Id. at 822.

71 Id.

72 Id. at 865–66.

73 Id. at 847.

74 Id.

75 Id.

76 1 Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary 32 n.3, 160, 186 n.58, 237 (1981).

77 [1994] 1 S.C.R. at 865.

78 Deschênes Commission Report, supra note 15, at 3–11.

79 “Germany (Federal Republic) v. Rauca, 41 O.R.2d 225 (C.A. 1983).

80 Canada (Secretary of State) v. Luitjens, [1989] 2 F.C. 125 (Trial Div.); see also Luitjens v. The Queen, 9 Can. Rts. Rep. 2d 149 (Fed. Ct. App. 1992), leave to appeal refused, [1992] 2 S.C.R. at viii.

81 Rudolph v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 2 F.C. 653 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1992] 3 S.C.R. at viii. See also Luitjens v. Canada (Solicitor General), 23 Imm. L.R.2d 133 (Imm. & Ref. Bd. (App. Div.) 1994).

82 Report of meeting with Canadian government representatives in Toronto (Jan. 30, 1995) (on file with author).

83 Press release, supra note 8.

84 Id.

85 Deschênes Commission Report, supra note 15, at 111.

86 Id. at 168–239.

87 Id. at 185–225.

88 David Matas, The Case of Imre Finta, 34 U.N.B.LJ. 281, 282 (1994).