Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on April 30th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I hereby call to order this 15th meeting of the Sub-Committee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

This is a televised meeting, so I'll just encourage people to keep the back chatter to a minimum so that we don't have any problems with the audio system.

Today we have a large number of people at the table who are here to answer questions, but I think we should recognize that we have two key witnesses. First of all, Jayne Stoyles is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for International Justice.

Am I correct that Mark Arnold and François Larocque are with you, Ms. Stoyles?

[Jayne Stoyles, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for International Justice]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We're very glad to have all of you here.

As well, Stephan Kazemi is here as a witness, and he is accompanied by two of his lawyers, Kurt Johnson and Mathieu Bouchard.

I'm going to suggest that we start with Mr. Kazemi, and once he's completed his comments we'll turn to Ms. Stoyles.

Just so you're aware of this, normally we have more or less ten minutes for the opening presentations. Then we turn to questions from the floor. The length of those questions is to some degree dictated by how tightly our witnesses have been able to keep to the ten minutes for their presentations.

With that being said, Mr. Kazemi, would you like to begin?

[Stephan Kazemi, As an Individual]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Please go ahead. Just speak naturally and we'll hear you.

[Stephan Kazemi]

I'll speak in French.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your kind invitation to appear before the Committee to discuss my experience which, to a great extent, is the same as that of my mother, Ziba Kazemi, as she was known to her friends and to me.

I want to begin by saying that preparing this brief was a painful exercise. Too often, I have come up against the indifference and incomprehension of others, who are incapable of imagining the pain that I felt and that I still feel, almost six years later. Too often, the harm caused by the loss of a mother and of her love, in such tragic circumstances, seemed to escape the people I was addressing.

And yet, writing this brief, one action out of so many others, also gave me tremendous satisfaction, because seeing that justice is done is really my only concern. As I see it, where there is no justice, there can be no peace.

When I arrived in Canada in 1993 from France, where I was born, with my mother, Ziba Kazemi, an expression used here struck both of us and got us talking: « C'est pas pire » or, literally, « It isn't worse ». It is a popular expression. Well, my message today is simple: when it comes to torture, there is nothing worse.

Is that obvious? And, if it is obvious, how can Canada give immunity to torturers? What sovereignty-related pretext could justify a decision not to bring to justice people who take extreme measures to torture their fellow human beings, who wound and bruise the human body? To what extent can these rules and precepts be disembodied, dismembered, even detached from human reality, in order to guarantee impunity to those who would mutilate, burn or cut apart this body and this heart that we were given?

My mother was a professional photojournalist. Through her art, she wanted to inform, connect with and educate people. She gave a voice to the people of those countries she focused on—she even gave them hope. Her greatest desire was, and I quote: “to put an end to the quasi-unanimous silence of the international community, when one country legalizes torture and the other legislates absolute power; to break the silence of some and the brainwashing of others.”

With me today are my lawyers, who will be able to answer any legal questions. However, my testimony today is of a more personal nature, and is intended to perhaps put a face on the tragedies experienced by millions of people every day in silence, far from the cameras, too often forgotten.

So, I am her son. I am the one who shouted, who protested, seeking justice. The one who refused to wait passively for diplomatic notes to produce an effect. I am the one who wanted the entire world to know what happened to my mother, and that our government and our laws too often betray us, unworthy of the memory of a mother, her son and a country of openness and respect that welcomed them some years ago.

I would like to quote a brief passage from something written by my mother, Ziba, about her country of origin, Iran:

For 20 years now, Iran has been transfigured as horrified and dazed children looked on. They see their country bending under the weight of the political illiteracy so deeply entrenched at the very pinnacle of the power structure and which despoils their fortune even as the population multiplies. Iran, an ancient country built around a mosaic of racial, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity. Iran, stretched across a vast land of riches and with a geopolitical status of great significance, the same Iran that nourished the dreams of so many creators and sensitive souls and which now strikes terror in the hearts of its citizens.

So, here I am, almost six years after my mother's violent kidnapping by the Iranian government. After throwing her in prison, slapping her, bruising her, beating her, depriving her of her dignity, and then murdering her, they, the members of the Iranian government, buried her six feet under.

Before the death of my mother, and even in the days and weeks that followed her death, I was very naive. Naive like others, of course, who believed that the government of a country is responsible for protecting its citizens. Today, I am aware that, in real life, that ideal has many limitations, limitations which flow in part from a lack of political will, including inside the Canadian government. In fact, too often, the best interests of the government take precedence over the freedom or even the lives of the individuals who are citizens of that country.

I understand that you asked me to appear today to tell you about my feelings and my experience in this regard and to discuss legislation that we have here in Canada and which gives governments, as well as their brutal, bloodthirsty officials, complete immunity in relation to their victims. So, there you have it: that is the impression and the feeling I have been living with for five and a half years—that of a government that has and continues to make it clear that it could not care less. Because, not only were its initial efforts in vain, but it resists and expresses opposition to the action taken against the Iranian authorities, preferring instead to support enforcement of the Law of State Immunity in relation to Iran and its officials, in this case.

Thus far, I have sacrificed many—indeed, some of the best—years of my life, simply to make an example of this case, of my experience and especially Ziba's, so that these kinds of events never occur again. I am proud to take my personal responsibilities in this affair, and I would like to see the federal government do the same, be it in relation to my mother's cause or in terms of actions it can take to ensure respect for human rights internationally, both in Iran and elsewhere on the planet.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as the Committee Against Torture, recently strongly recommended that the Government of Canada allow victims of torture to seek redress before Canadian courts of law. The relevant documentation can be found on the website of the Ziba Kazemi Foundation—zibakazemi.org. There you can also find the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Iran, Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo, a man I like very much. He devotes several pages to my mother's case and emphasizes the climate of impunity that prevails in Iran, a climate that we reinforce by maintaining that same immunity here in Canada.

Indeed, some time after the release of his report, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Iran joined with other UN special rapporteurs to make the entire world aware of their deep concerns with respect to the climate of impunity that has yet to be resolved, the same climate in which the worst human rights violations continue to be committed.

I have expressed to you my bitterness and my feeling of helplessness, but I am also aware of and very much appreciate the flowers that have sprouted even in the midst of this field of misery. I am talking about our system, the Canadian system. I am talking about laws and mechanisms that work and that are there for the people. I am also talking about the flowers these same people have planted all along my path, and I now believe deeply that the time has come to plant a new flower—that it is time for justice to be done to the worst victims of this world. It is time to send a clear, concise message to the world at large—that we, the people of Canada, will not tolerate torture.

I would like to see Canada take a leadership role; to see the torturers of this world on their guard, knowing that, from now on, they might have to face their victims and possibly lose a commercial shipment or two as compensation for the pain they have inflicted through their own folly. A futile move? No, because these executioners, be they in Iran or elsewhere, often only understand one language—the language of dollars and cents. By allowing their victims to receive compensation through the Canadian courts, we hit these people where it hurts them most. We will not cure them quite so easily, I fear, but putting an end to the immunity they currently enjoy will gradually force them to stop doing what they are doing. Is there any greater disincentive that the certainty that you will have to answer for your actions?

What I am seeking is justice. That is obviously not a matter of money for myself, as someone who has been fighting for more than five years, standing before the gates of Hell—I, who have been living from day to day with my every thought, my every emotion focused on this affair. I consider it my mission to make a significant contribution to justice, in the light of my own experience, and to turn a tragic event into the seeds whence will sprout millions of flowers, a living monument to my mother's memory.

Finally, at every step on this path, along with the failures, there has been one tremendous victory: the people. We have had a chance to reach out and touch the hearts of people. Even six years after this tragedy, I am still receiving words of encouragement, greetings, letters and tributes from people whom I do not know but who, like me, believe in goodness, in truth and justice, who believe in my mother, in me, who have not forgotten us, and who look to us still.

Even though justice has eluded us thus far, and even though, in spite of the beauty and perfume of the other flowers in our midst, justice remains unattainable, we, the people, still believe in it and want to breathe new life into it. Justice that does not help the people is no justice at all; it is justice that is sick and unbalanced. In Canada, justice means allowing the citizens of this country to be tortured with impunity. That is the reality; those are the facts.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing me to take some of your precious time today. I hope to meet with you again, in the near future, in a world where there is no fear, a free world, a world that can begin right here, in Canada.

I hope we will meet again soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Kazemi.

Ms. Stoyles, please.

[Jayne Stoyles]

Distinguished members of the Committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss a matter of great importance to Canada. It is entirely possible to see that the survivors of human rights violations in Iran obtain justice and to prevent this type of violence in future.

Distinguished members of the committee, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today about a very important issue, the need to reform the State Immunity Act, and more specifically, how the issue of immunity has prevented victims of torture in Iran and their families, people like Stephan, from obtaining justice.

I also want to thank Stephan for his courage in telling this kind of story and continuing to seek justice in his case.

I am the executive director of the Canadian Centre for International Justice, which is based here in Ottawa. The CCIJ is a charitable organization that works with survivors of torture, genocide, and other atrocities to seek redress and bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. I am a lawyer and I previously directed the global campaign to establish the International Criminal Court.

I want to quickly introduce my colleagues who will join this discussion, both of whom are part of the CCIJ network.

Mark Arnold is a lawyer in Toronto specializing in civil litigation, who has, in recent years, turned his attention to pursuing justice in Canadian courts for human rights abuses committed abroad. He represented Mr. Houshang Bouzari, a torture survivor from Iran who is now living in Canada, in a lawsuit against the Government of Iran. I'd like to mention also that Mr. Bouzari is with us here today in the gallery.

François Larocque is a professor of law at the University of Ottawa. He has studied the issue of immunity for many years and intervened in the Bouzari case on behalf of the non-profit organization Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights. He is also involved in two ongoing cases concerning the State Immunity Act.

As you have heard very succinctly and poetically, the family of Zahra Kazemi continues to wait for justice. We've heard how Ms. Kazemi, who was a Canadian citizen, was tortured in an Iranian prison for doing nothing more than taking pictures of a demonstration. Her injuries show that during her torture, Iranian officials sexually abused her and broke several bones, including her skull. Those injuries, of course, eventually killed her.

In the nearly six years since her death, no one has been held accountable. In fits and starts, and under heavy international pressure, the Iranian regime has admitted some responsibility, but no one has been convicted in the case. Her family, including Stephan, understanding all too well the futility of the investigation in Iran, filed their suit in Montreal against the Government of Iran and three individual Iranian officials. Iran now argues it's immune from the lawsuit because of Canada's State Immunity Act, and the court will decide this issue later this year.

There are several differences that distinguish Ms. Kazemi's case from a previous, unsuccessful attempt to hold Iran accountable for torture, and that was in the case of Mr. Bouzari, but there is at least a likelihood that her lawsuit will also fail because of the restrictive language with which our State Immunity Act is written. This speculation is based on the case of Mr. Bouzari, who in 1993 and 1994 was imprisoned, beaten, whipped, shocked, and subjected to mock executions over nearly eight months.

As a previous employee in Iran’s oil sector, he had been retained by a consortium of companies seeking to develop oil resources in Iran. He was tortured because he refused to concede to demands for a bribe from the son of Iran’s president. A few years after Iranian officials released Mr. Bouzari, he and his family moved to Canada. His lawsuit in Ontario against the Government of Iran, however, failed. Even though Iran did not defend the case, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the State Immunity Act provided Iran protection from lawsuits involving torture. Leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

The practical result of Mr. Bouzari's case is that residents of Canada who are or were tortured in Iran, as in other repressive countries, cannot get justice. Mr. Bouzari certainly cannot return to Iran to file suit there, and the investigation of Ms. Kazemi's death in Tehran clearly shows the impossibility of an impartial process in Iran.

The plaintiffs in these two lawsuits live in Canada, making it unlikely that a court in any other country would take jurisdiction over their cases. Canadian courts, therefore, become the last resort. As a result of the dismissal of his case in Ontario, Mr. Bouzari has been completely denied justice, and there is a risk that the same could happen to Ms. Kazemi's family. I should add that Maher Arar's lawsuit against the governments of Syria and Jordan was likewise dismissed on the same immunity grounds. If Ms. Kazemi's suit is not permitted to go forward, this will likely close Canadian courts permanently to survivors of torture.

The principle of state immunity is, at heart, about respect for sovereignty. Immunity generally prevents the courts of one nation from sitting in judgment of another country’s official or sovereign acts. It's intended to prevent disruptions in diplomatic relations where courts may come to conclusions that differ from the pronouncements of the government of the day. Today, however, most nations acknowledge that they should not be immune from everything, particularly when they are engaged in activities that are not, at their core, sovereign acts. Canada's State Immunity Act was passed in 1982 and reflects this restrictive approach to immunity. In other words, that it was not intended to provide immunity for everything.

Although the State Immunity Act begins with the presumption that foreign governments are immune in Canadian courts, the act then sets out exceptions for which immunity will not be granted. For example, foreign states are not immune from civil liability for commercial activities, nor are they immune from any death, bodily injury, or property damage that occurs in Canada. These exceptions apply because the underlying activities are not deemed to be sovereign in nature. Equally, the international community now considers torture an act that is not appropriate for any sovereign to undertake. In the hierarchy of international law, the prohibition against torture is at the top, the international equivalent of a constitutional norm. It binds all nations, and no country is entitled to employ torture, no matter what the circumstance. Torture is not an act that should be immunized.

The current barrier created by the language of Canada's State Immunity Act in civil lawsuits is compounded by the fact that justice is largely unavailable in criminal cases in Canada as well. In the nine years since the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act was passed to empower Canadian criminal courts to try suspects accused of committing atrocities abroad, the Canadian government has prosecuted only one case. A similar provision of the Criminal Code concerning torture sits unused.

The federal war crimes program, tasked with pursuing these cases, has not received a funding increase at any time during its ten-year existence. Of the four government departments in the program, we understand that the two assigned to the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases, the RCMP and the Department of Justice, receive only an approximate 8% of the program's funding. The Canada Border Services Agency and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which focus on exclusion and removal of alleged war criminals with no regard to the need for justice, receive the lion's share of the budget.

This funding imbalance has very real and very practical consequences for the RCMP and the Department of Justice. It appears that only one criminal prosecution at a time may be possible. Given that there may be at least 1,500 alleged torturers and war criminals living in Canada, it's almost impossible to imagine the program using these extremely limited resources to pursue a case like Ms. Kazemi's, in which the individuals responsible are outside Canada's borders.

As a result of its use of the State Immunity Act to deny torture survivors a remedy, Canada's also currently in breach of its legal obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture. Article 14 of the treaty requires parties to provide redress and compensation to survivors of torture. After the Bouzari decision, the United Nations Committee Against Torture, which is the body charged with overseeing the proper implementation of the convention, conducted a periodic review of Canada's compliance with the treaty. Committee members were well aware of the Bouzari case and they rejected the Canadian government's argument that countries are only required to provide compensation for torture that occurred within its own borders. Instead, the committee made clear in its final report that article 14 requires states to provide redress to all survivors of torture, regardless of where the torture occurred. The committee noted Canada's “absence of effective measures to provide civil compensation to victims of torture in all cases”, and it recommended “that Canada should review its position under Article 14 of the Convention to ensure the provision of compensation through its civil jurisdiction to all victims of torture”.

By amending the State Immunity Act, Canada can also begin providing deterrents against future human rights abuses. Such deterrents will only come through a robust system combining criminal and civil penalties and holding accountable both individuals and governments. I understand there will be concerns that such a step will open the metaphorical floodgates, swamping Canadian courts with lawsuits about human rights abuses that occurred overseas. However, the judicial system already has checks in place to reject any cases not properly before the courts. In all cases, judges must assure themselves that a lawsuit has a real and substantial connection to the province in which they sit. In Mr. Bouzari's case, the primary connection to Ontario was his residence in the province at the time he filed suit. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether this was sufficient for jurisdiction, because it dismissed the case on immunity grounds. Only because no remedy was available in Iran, they said, was this issue not an easy one to decide.

Even if a real and substantial connection exists with a Canadian province, a lawsuit would still only proceed if Canada is the best forum. If another country is in a better position to hear a case, perhaps due to location of witnesses and evidence, and if that country protects due process rights, a Canadian court can dismiss the lawsuit. As a result, Canadian courts will only take on those cases in which Canada is both the best forum and the last resort.

Removing immunity for torture will not suddenly make Canadian courts a watchdog overseeing the internal workings of other countries, or require them to pry into all areas of a foreign government's business. Rather, it will permit inspection in a small number of cases concerning the most abhorrent actions imaginable, when the nations responsible are unwilling or unable to do so.

This also limits disruption of the smooth flow of foreign diplomacy. In fact, the denunciation of torture in Iran through the courts would be directly in line with Canada's policy toward Iran. Canada has taken a lead role in passing resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly denouncing Iran's human rights practices, including one at the end of 2008.

The position we are advancing today is not new or novel. The issue has been studied and debated extensively over a number of years. Last November, the CCIJ hosted a workshop about civil litigation in Canadian courts for torture and other atrocities. The workshop brought together experts from across Canada, including both practitioners and academics. Participants agreed that there was a strong need to reform the State Immunity Act to provide an exemption for torture and other atrocities.

Several years earlier, the International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Toronto Law School, in conjunction with a host of experts, produced a recommended amendment to the State Immunity Act that was eventually introduced as legislation. We have provided the members with a copy of that proposed amendment, whcih may serve as a starting point for a new bill. There have also been discussions on other types of amendments to the act, some of which have been presented as private members' bills.

Such a system is workable. The United States allows victims of torture and other atrocities to sue individuals who are responsible for those crimes. Those lawsuits have hardly overwhelmed the system. In fact, courts have proven fully capable of dismissing or trimming down legally deficient claims.

Although the U.S. laws cannot generally be used against governments, Congress did create an explicit exemption to its Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow lawsuits against a handful of countries, including Iran. Similarly, there is a global trend toward removing immunity for torture and other atrocities in the civil context. In fact, we understand that in many countries there is no equivalent to Canada's State Immunity Act.

The international community overwhelmingly agrees that torture is illegal in all circumstances and abhorrent in a modern society. By providing immunity to regimes that commit torture, like Iran, Canada is failing not only in its obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, but also in its moral duty to provide refuge and hope to victims.

Amendment of the State Immunity Act would allow Canada to stand clearly on the side of survivors, rather than the torturers. It would also provide a very concrete way for this committee to make a contribution to the prevention of the kinds of extreme violations of international human rights that you have been hearing about in the course of your investigation of the situation in Iran.

I thank you for your time today.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to questions from the floor. Normally we start with seven-minute questions and then we follow those in the first round with five-minute questions, but always it's essential that questioners and responders keep their questions and responses as short as possible. Having said that, we're ready to begin.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming forward. I must say it's quite an impressive group that is before the committee.

I will begin by asking Ms. Stoyles a question. The issue and the facts were pretty much laid out, but beyond that you mentioned some of the amendments that might need to be made. I want you to elaborate specifically on what amendments to the State Immunity Act you think need to be made, and that we could do as parliamentarians in this committee.

[Jayne Stoyles]

Thank you very much for the question.

I should say also that any questions addressed to me, if it's okay with the members, will also be addressed by my colleagues who are here today. Maybe I'll make a first point, then, and see if they would like to add.

If I understood correctly, the question was about what exactly would be the amendment we're seeking. There are different opinions as to the exact wording, and I think that is something we would be following up with you to discuss, but the essential request today is that we provide an exemption to Canada's State Immunity Act for the commission of torture, and hopefully for other atrocities, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide as well. It would be quite similar to the wording that already exists in the act for commercial activity and for criminal activities committed in Canada.

We've provided one example of wording that was developed by the University of Toronto legal clinic. It goes through the act and makes potential wording clear. We would be happy to have discussions following that up and drawing on our group of experts to take a look again at whether that exact formulation is correct, or whether there's something else that would be appropriate.

[Mark Arnold, Lawyer, Gardiner Miller Arnold, As an Individual]

Could I respond as well?

Mr. Silva, I'm delighted that you would ask the question on what amendments we are seeking. You've moved us a quantum step ahead. What I was hoping I would get from the committee today was a commitment to put the issue on the agenda. Now, sir, that you appear to have committed yourself to putting it on the agenda we can study the amendments that are necessary.

You have a whole raft of legal talent here, and we have access to talent all across the country. We can do the amendments for you, and Parliament can do the amendments that are necessary. We want your commitment as MPs to move onto the agenda the issue of amending the State Immunity Act to protect torture victims.

Thank you for the question.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

If we have a subsequent meeting maybe you can provide us the information in writing so that committee members can see some of those. I know there's a wealth of talent before us, but I want to make sure we'll be able to get that information to our committee members.

[Mark Arnold]

Just call us, call Jayne, and we are there at your disposal. We will come to any meeting anywhere and meet with anyone. This issue is critical. We need to provide protection to Canadians and others in Canada who have suffered these violent acts.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

When Canada signed the convention against torture and ratified it we also set out a series of legislation to comply with the international protocol. Do you feel that we did not go far enough in terms of the implementation stages with the convention and therefore in some ways we're not in full compliance with the convention against torture? Is that what I'm getting from you as well?

[Dr. François Larocque, Associate Professor and Director, National Program, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

I can speak in either language, but sometimes my French brain takes over my English.

When Canada ratified the convention against torture the most immediate legislative action it took was to implement the criminal side of the equation. The crime of torture was added to the Criminal Code and universal jurisdiction was provided for it. However, it did not implement article 14 explicitly. This is what the UN Committee Against Torture noted in its report to us in 2005.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I know Canada does not make reservations on international treaties, so there were no reservations made by Canada. Unlike other countries that ratified the convention and put reservations, Canada did not make any reservations. It's a question of we have not put all in place in terms of our domestic legislation to be in compliance with our international commitments. Is that what I'm getting?

[Dr. François Larocque]

That's right.

This could generate a huge discussion in itself, but there are many reasons why this might have occurred. One is maybe that it was deemed wise to proceed step by step. It is quite rare in fact that conventions are implemented wholesale, that every section of a convention or treaty is implemented wholesale. It is quite often done, particularly in human rights cases, on a piecemeal approach. Sometimes it's because it is thought that Canadian law already provides the necessary protection that is required from the treaty. However, this is not the case with article 14 of the convention against torture. There is no explicit implementation on that obligation to provide a civil remedy for torture.

[Jayne Stoyles]

I would add that when I was referring to the review of Canada's record by the United Nations Convention against Torture and they essentially said that Canada was in breach of its obligations, it was essentially because of the interpretation of the State Immunity Act that was given in the Bouzari case at the Ontario Court of Appeal. In that decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal said that because the State Immunity Act exists and protects governments like Iran from civil suits, this means that the torture had to have been committed in Canada in order for someone to receive a remedy, which is clearly not the intention of the convention on torture. The UN committee then was making it clear that was not their intention in drafting the convention on torture. It was intended to provide a remedy regardless of where the torture was committed, and Canada's interpretation was far too restrictive.

It really highlighted that we need to have an amendment to the State Immunity Act to make clear that immunity should not be provided for officials who commit torture.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

We are also signatories to the International Criminal Court, which would be another important issue regarding the State Immunity Act and so forth. Are we then in breach of two conventions, both the United Nations Convention against Torture and that of the International Criminal Court, which Canada signed onto as well?

[Dr. François Larocque]

I can respond to that.

There is no direct obligation in the Rome Statute to provide civil remedies for the crimes that it prohibits. So I would not say that Canada is in violation of the Rome Statute for failing to provide a civil remedy. I would say the source of the breach, in our case, would be the convention against torture.

That being said, there is a view that could be taken that for all crimes of international law--torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes--a full panoply of remedies should be made available, criminal and civil. So that argument could be made, but to your earlier question, there is no direct obligation flowing from the Rome Statute.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Madame Thi Lac.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you all for being here. You have come out today to enlighten us on this important subject.

I would like to begin with Mr. Kazemi. In your opening statement, one could see that your grief is real and that your mother's death and the cruelty and inhumanity she suffered are unacceptable. You are right to say that subjecting someone to torture, beatings and sexual assaults is something that all Canadians should speak out against. I want you to know that we, here today, understand your struggle.

You talked about justice. You stated several times during your testimony that you do not believe that justice has been done. Could you just tell me, in two minutes, when you will consider that justice has been done?

[Stephan Kazemi]

It will be when my requests, which go back almost six years, have received a positive response. First, repatriation of my mother's body, which has no business being in Shiraz, Iran. This is the first time I have said this, but my mother's personal wish, a wish that she communicated to me, was to be exhumed. Her final wishes were not respected. Furthermore, even if she had not wished to be exhumed, she should be buried here, close to me.

Second, I would like the known perpetrators of this crime to be tried and punished. It is patently clear that the Government of Iran is responsible for this crime. I cannot target just one or two people, because the torturers are not the only ones responsible. The real perpetrator of this crime is the Government of Iran. It is a very clear case—it could not be clearer—of cover-up. All these years, the entire government has proven, through its own stupidity, that it was responsible and that it was aware of all the details of this affair. Whether we are talking about the Committee on Section 90 or the different opposition parties, it is a political battle in Iran, but all the parties know the truth and are thus complicit. The Government of Iran is responsible for this crime.