By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

ONTARIO, Canada – Jacques Mungwarere was arrested on Friday November 6, and has been charged with violating Canada’s War Crimes Act. He was arraigned on Saturday in federal court. Mungwarere is the second person to be charged with violating the law since it came into effect.

Mungwarere was charged under the act for his participation in the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi tribe in Rawanda. Police began the investigation when they received a tip from a concerned citizen. Police did not release any information about the person who told them Mungwarere was in Canada or whether the informant was in Canada or in Rwanda.

In a six year investigation the police interviewed people from Canada, the United States, and Rwanda. Canadian authorities made four trips to Rwanda during the investigation. “We’ve received very good co-operation from the government of Rwanda, which has provided logistical support particularly in locating witnesses,” said Royal Canadian Police Sergeant Menard. “The government of Rwanda did not impede nor did it attempt to influence our investigation.”

Menard would not give much information about Mungwarere’s crimes or his status as a citizen. “I can only say that he is a Rwandan national,” said Menard. Little has been released about the details of his crimes other that he is being charged for action during the 1994 genocide in Kibuye

Kibuye is a town in Rwanda located near the border between Rwanda and the Congo. Kibuye was not immune from the violence that occurred in 1994 genocide. In 1994 bulldozers knocked down a church killing 2000 Tutsi who were seeking refuge inside.

Menard hinted that there may be a connection between Mungwarere and Desire Munyasa the first person to be tried under the Canadian War Crimes Act. Munyasa was sentenced to life in prison last month after being convicted of seven crimes including murder, rape, and torture. Munyasa was in a different region of Rwanda when he committed his crimes.

The Canadian war crimes act came into effect in 2000. A universal jurisdiction clause allows Canada to charge people under the act for crimes committed in Rwanda. The 1994 genocide there claimed the lives of some 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu moderates. Ron Charlebois, who heads the RCMP’s War Crimes division, stated: “Persons who commit such heinous crimes are not welcome to Canada. We will do everything within our ability, with the resources allocated to us, to ensure that such persons do not enjoy impunity here.”

For more information, please see:

Ottawa Citizen – Windsor Man Faces Genocide Charge – 8 November 2009

AFP – Canadian Police Arrest Rwandan Immigrant, Allege Genocide – 7 November 2009

The Canadian Press – RCMP Arrest and Charge Rwandan War Criminal After 6 Year Probe – 7 November 2009

By Brenda López Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

 YUCATAN, Mexico – Litigators, Raul Lugo Rodríguez and Jorge Fernandez, from the Indigenous Group insist that Ricardo Ucan Seca’s fundamental human rights were violated because he was not provided with defense counsel that spoke in his Indigenous Mayan language during Ucan Seca’s trial. Ucan Seca has been detained in the Social Rehabilitation Center of Merida since 2000. Ucan Seca filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) against the Mexican State alleging violations to the American Convention for Human Rights.

The State of Yucatan argued to the IACHR that fourteen judges, both state and federal, determined that Ucan Seca is guilty of Bernardino Chan’s homicide. However, in 2007, the Commission on Human Rights for the State of Yucatan identified irregularities by the defense counsel, Blanca Segovia Ruiz, in Ucan Seca’s trial.  

The Honorable Florentín Meléndez of IACHR asked the State to provide documentation to prove that the defense counsel was able to speak Maya when the defense counsel litigated Ucan Seca’s defense. IACHR also requested more evidence of the due process procedures when Ucan Seca was determined guilty by the trial court.    

Alejandro Negrin, Executive Director of the Council on Human Rights in Mexico, sought to become a mediator between the State and Ucan Seca, to bring a quicker resolution to the matter since Ucan Seca has been imprisoned for the last ten years. Nonetheless, Negrin testified to IACHR that in Ucan Seca’s case there was compliance with the American Convention for Human Rights and there were no rights violated.

For more information, please see:

Diario de Yucatán – Discrimina el Estado al pueblo – 6 November 2009

Tribuna – Ratifica Gobierno condena a indígena – 6 November 2009

Terra – Gobierno mexicano accede a buscar solución en caso debido proceso a indígena – 5 November 2009

 

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – On November 12, the United States Supreme Court will hear two cases on the issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Advocates for the defendants argue that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The two cases the Supreme Court will hear originated in Florida. In Sullivan v. Florida, a thirteen year old was convicted of of armed robbery and rape. In Graham v. Florida, a seventeen year old was convicted of armed robbery. Both defendants had previous prior criminal records at the time they committed their crimes. They were both sentenced to life in prison without parole because of the seriousness of their offenses. Neither of the crimes resulted in death. Florida currently incarcerates seventy-seven out of the one hundred eleven juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole in the United States for crimes that did not result in death.

Advocates for both Sullivan and Graham will argue that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal crime is cruel and unusual punishment. Only ten other countries in the world allow juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Only the U.S. and Somalia have not signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which bans the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for children. The attorneys for both defendants also will use scientific and psychological information to show the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. According to one study, for instance, adolescents and children are more susceptible to peer pressure and focused on short term rewards. Therefore, they should not be subject to the same sentences as adults.

Those arguing against Sullivan and Graham state that the sentences they received may have been harsh but were constitutional. They argue that the sentence is an “essential crime fighting tool” because of the high crime rates of juveniles. For example, according to a 2002 World Health Organization survey, the number of murders committed by U.S. juveniles was comparable to Colombia and Mexico. Supporters of the sentence also argue that it is needed to hold those who committed the crimes responsible.

For more information, please see:

Baltimore Sun – Throwing Away the Key – 4 November 2009

Newsweek – 18 And a Life to Go – 4 November 2009

Washington Post – Supreme Court Will Consider Life Sentences for Juveniles – 29 October 2009

 

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – On November 12, the United States Supreme Court will hear two cases on the issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Advocates for the defendants argue that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The two cases the Supreme Court will hear originated in Florida. In Sullivan v. Florida, a thirteen year old was convicted of of armed robbery and rape. In Graham v. Florida, a seventeen year old was convicted of armed robbery. Both defendants had previous prior criminal records at the time they committed their crimes. They were both sentenced to life in prison without parole because of the seriousness of their offenses. Neither of the crimes resulted in death. Florida currently incarcerates seventy-seven out of the one hundred eleven juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole in the United States for crimes that did not result in death.

Advocates for both Sullivan and Graham will argue that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal crime is cruel and unusual punishment. Only ten other countries in the world allow juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Only the U.S. and Somalia have not signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which bans the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for children. The attorneys for both defendants also will use scientific and psychological information to show the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. According to one study, for instance, adolescents and children are more susceptible to peer pressure and focused on short term rewards. Therefore, they should not be subject to the same sentences as adults.

Those arguing against Sullivan and Graham state that the sentences they received may have been harsh but were constitutional. They argue that the sentence is an “essential crime fighting tool” because of the high crime rates of juveniles. For example, according to a 2002 World Health Organization survey, the number of murders committed by U.S. juveniles was comparable to Colombia and Mexico. Supporters of the sentence also argue that it is needed to hold those who committed the crimes responsible.

For more information, please see:

Baltimore Sun – Throwing Away the Key – 4 November 2009

Newsweek – 18 And a Life to Go – 4 November 2009

Washington Post – Supreme Court Will Consider Life Sentences for Juveniles – 29 October 2009

By Brenda López Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

 DURANGO, México – Durango Governor Ismael Hernandez Deras has just issued a statement that journalist Bladimir Auntuna Garcia’s killing will be investigated by the Special District Attorneys Office against Aggression to Journalists. The Governor lamented the journalist’s death and said that the state government would fully support an investigation of the homicide. Hernandez Deras committed himself to follow up on the results from the DA’s investigation.

Gabriela Gallegos Ávila, President of the World Association for Women Journalists expressed concerns that there was no guarantee that the government would do its job, properly investigate, and bring justice to Auntuna Garcia. Further, Gallegos Avila is worried about the safety of journalists to practice in their fields.

Within the last year alone there have been four journalist homicides in Durango and only two of them have been resolved. In the Tiempo de Durango, a group of communications specialists wrote a joint article to condemn the homicides and to demand the government fully investigate and resolve the murders and safety issues.

Local print, radio, and television reporters agree that the message of Auntuna Garcia’s death is to induce intimidation for journalists in Durango. There was a police leak that the deceased journalist wrote a message before his killing that stated: “this happened for passing information to the military and writing about more than I should, take care of what you write, and do not pass information to anyone or what happens to me can happen to you. Sincerely Bladimir Antuna.”

A print reporter indicated that the message was a warning to journalists. He confided that the criminals were reaching their objective: “to terrorize all those that worked in media communications from reporters to directors.”

The National Comisión on Human Rights (NHCR) denounced the violence against reporters in Mexico and demands the government make an efficient investigation. NCHR will conduct its own investigation.  

For more information, please see:

El Universal – CNDH dara seguimiento a crimen de periodista de Durango – 4 November 2009

La Jornada – La PGR atraerá el caso del asesinato de Bladimir Antuna – 4 November 2009

Vanguardia – Inicia CNDH queja de oficio por homicidio de un periodista en Durango – 4 November 2009