2009-2010 NIAGARA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4. Procedural Posture Through a series of immigration and judicial decisions, the U.S. District Court and the Federal Court of Appeals affirmed that Mr. Rutaganda could be removed to Rwanda. 24 On September 15, <strong>2009</strong>, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mr. Rutaganda’s petition for certiorari. 25 In response to the decision to extradite to Rwanda, the Government of Canada vigorously protested the luring and apprehension of Mr. Rutaganda, claiming that the U.S. violated Canada’s territorial sovereignty, its treaty obligations to Canada, and the rights of its citizens under international law not to be subject to arbitrary arrest. 26 Moreover, Canada’s Prime Minister threatened to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in <strong>2010</strong> unless the U.S. agreed to subject the case of Mr. Rutaganda to the International Court of Justice for adjudication. 27 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 11. 27 Id. at 12. xi
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Canada’s territorial sovereignty was not violated because the U.S. did not enter Canada to abduct and arrest Mr. Rutaganda. Further, Mr. Rutaganda’s international human rights were not violated when he was lured into the U.S. and subsequently arrested. While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (I.C.C.P.R.), international tribunals, and customary international law recognize forcible abduction and kidnapping as forms of arbitrary arrest is in violation of a person’s international human rights, luring is not viewed as forcible abduction or kidnapping, and domestic and international tribunals have found that luring does not violate international laws. Finally, the U.S. has not violated its obligations under the U.S.-Canada Extradition Treaty or the 1988 Exchange of Letters on Transborder Abduction. Rendition of Mr. Rutaganda to Rwanda to stand trial in the Rwandan courts, furthermore, is the best viable opportunity to ensure justice for all parties involved: Mr. Rutaganda, the genocide victims of the Boutaire Massacre, and the international community as a whole. Under principles of comity, and alternatively, aut dedere aut judiciare, rendition does not violate any international law or custom and may in fact be required. Furthermore, despite the traditional paradigm of the “innocent, helpless child soldier,” Mr. Rutaganda’s actions were so egregious as to not only demonstrate his own agency and self-control, but to place him within a narrow category of war crimes cases on which international law permits trial. For these reasons, Respondents ask this Court to find the luring of Mr. Rutaganda into the US did not violate either international law principles or Canada’s territorial sovereignty, and that rendering Mr. Rutaganda to the Rwandan courts for trial is proper. 1
Page 1 and 2: 2009-2010 NIAGARA INTERNATIONAL MOO
Page 3 and 4: C. The apprehension and arrest of M
Page 5 and 6: Case of Sergio Ruben Lopez Burgos,
Page 7 and 8: JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The Govern
Page 9 and 10: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Emanual Rutag
Page 11: efused to cooperate or prosecute Mr
Page 15 and 16: is a crime under U.S. and Canadian
Page 17 and 18: y Uruguayan agents. 43 As a result,
Page 19 and 20: The U.S. Supreme Court has held tha
Page 21 and 22: negative reaction from the internat
Page 23 and 24: agreements to the contrary, a State
Page 25 and 26: Despite the recalcitrant internatio
Page 27 and 28: This in turn leads to a failure to
Page 29 and 30: justice. 106 Allowing for criminal

2009-2010 NIAGARA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?