Court File Nos. 35677,35685,356883538835958

iN ThE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

(ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)

BETWEEN: Court File Na 35677

JESUS RODRIGUEZ HERNANDEZ

APPELLANT

-and-

MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

RESPONDENT-and

AflORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, UNiTED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FORREFUGEES, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS, CANADIAN

COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES, AMNESTY iNTERNATIONAL (CANADIAN SECTION,ENGLISH BRACH), CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, and DAVID ASPER

CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

INTERVENERS

AND BETWEEN: Court FIle Na 35685

B306APPELLANT

-and-

MINISTER OF PUBUC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

RESPONDENT-and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FORREFUGEES, CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES. DAVID ASPER CENTRE FORCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS,

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (CANADIAN SECTION, ENGLISH BRANCH), andCANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION

INTERVENERS

AND BETWEEN: Court File No. 35688

JP. El ALAPPELLANTS

-and-

MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

RESPONDENT-and-

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FORREFUGEES. CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES. CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF

REFUGEE LAWYERS AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (CANADIAN SECTION ENGLISHBRANCH). DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, and CANADIAN

CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION

INTERVENERS

AND BETWEEN: Court File No. 35388

BOlO

APPELLANT

-and-

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

RESPONDENT-and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO. CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEELAWYERS, CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES,

AMNESTY INTERNAl IONAL (CANADIAN SECTION, ENGLISH BRANCH),I)AVI[) ‘\SPF R CENTRE FOR C ONS1 I FUJ ION RIGHTS md

UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES

INTER VENERS

AND BETWEEN: Court File No. 35958

FRANCIS ANTHONIMUTHU APPULONAPPA ET AL.

-and-

APPELLANTS

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN FT AL.

-and-RESPONDENTS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (CANADIANSECTION ENGI 151-I BRANCH) BREI ISII COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATIONCANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION. CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES,

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS

INTERVENERS

FACTUM OF INTERVENERAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (CANADIAN SECTION, FNGLISH BRANCH)

Chantal Tie

South Ottawa Community Legal Services4061355 Bank Street,Ottawa, ON K I H 8K 7Tel: (613) 733-0140, ext 26Fax: (613) 733-0104ctie1vhrlsc.on.ca

Lalla Demirdache

Community Legal Services Ottawa CentreI Nicholas Street. Suite 422Ottawa, ON KIN 7B7Tel: i6$ 24ITh)O8. ct 228Fax: 6 3) 241-86804cm irdI4)Iaoonca

Counsel for Amnesty International<Canadian Section, English Branch)

Michael Bossin

Community Legal Services Ottawa CentreI Nicholas Street, Suite 422Ottawa, ON KiN 7B7Tel: (613)241-7008, ext 224Fax: (613) 241-8680hossinm(â)lao.on,ca

TO: THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

COPIE:S TO:

Ronald Poulton596 St. Clair Ave W.Toronto, ONM6C 1A6Telephone: (416) 653-9900 Ext. 232Fax: (416) 653-1036

Counsel for the Appellant, RodriguezHernandez. Jesus

Marianne ZoneGail Norah DorcineFrancois JoyalBanafsheh SokhansanjAttorney General of CanadaSuite 3400, Box 36130 King Street WestToronto, ONM5X 1K6Telephone: (416) 954-8046Fax: (416) 954-8982Email: marianne.zoricjustice.gc.ca

Counsel for the Respondent, Minister olPublicSafety and Emergency Preparedness (inHernandez, B306, I P. and G.J.) and Ministerof Citizenship and Immigration (in BOl 0)

Hart SchwartzPad raic RyanAttorney General of Ontario4th Floor. 720 Bay Streetloronto. ON\15( 2K]14.. lephone: (416) 212-3095Fax: t416 52t-401.DEmail: hart .s hwartz1ontarioca

Counsel for Intervener. Attorney General ofOntario in f!ernande;. B306. J. P. and Gd.,BOl 0, Appulonappa)

Jean LashSouth Ottawa Community Legal Services406-1355 Bank StreetOttawa, ONKIS 0X2Telephone: (613) 733-0140Fax: (613) 733-0401Email: lashj@lao.on.ca

Ottawa Agent fbr Counsel for the Appellant,Rodriguez Hernandez, Jesus

Christopher NI. Rupar

Attorney General of Canada50 O’Connor Street. Suite 500, Room 557Ottawa, ONKIA 01-18

Telephone: (613) 670-6290Fax: (613) 954-1920Email: christopher.rupar4ijj ustice. gc .ca

Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Respondent,Minister of Public Safety and EmergencyPreparedness (in Hernande:, B306. J. P. andG.I, BOJO)

Robert E. Houston, Q.C.Burke- Robertson44 I MacLaren Street. Suite 200Ottawa. ONK2P 2H3Telephone: (613) ..36-9665Fax: 235-4439Email: rhouston 4burkerobertson.com

C)ttawa Agent for Intervener. Attorney Generalof Ontario (in Hernande:. B306, I P. and Gd.,BO 70, Appulonappa)

John TerryRyan LaxRana R. KhanTorys LLPSuite 3000, Maritime Life TowerP.O. Box 270, Toronto-1)ominion CentreToronto, ONM5K 1N2Telephone: (416) 865-8245Fax: (416) 865-7380Email: jter1’torys.com

Counsel for Intervener, United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees (in Hernande:,8306, J.P. and Gd., BOJO)

Andrew J. BrouwerErin BobkinJennifer BondRefugee Law Office20 Dundas St. West, Suite 202Toronto, ONM5G 2WTelephone: (416) 977-8111 Ext. 7139Fax: (416) 977-5567Email: hrouweraQlao.on ca

Counsel for Intervener, Canadian Associationof Refugee Lawyers (in Hernande:, 8306, J. P.and GJ., Bob, Appulonappa)

Catherine BruceAngus (;rantLaura BestFadi YachouaDarryl W. LarsonReftigee Law Office20 1)undas Street West, Suite 202loronto. ON M 5G 2 I-IlTelephone: (416, 97781 IiFa\ (416)9 56Email: brucee 4Jaoonca

Counsel for Intervener, Canadian Council forRefugees (in flernande:. B306. 1. P. and GJ.BO 16. Appulonappa)

Jeffrey W. Beedell

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600Ottawa. ONKIP 1C3

Telephone: (613) 786-0171Fax: (613) 788-3587Email: jeff.beedellgowlings.com

Ottawa Agent for Intervener. United NationsHigh Commissioner for Refugees (inHernande:, B306. J.P. and Gd., BOb)

Karima Karmali

Legal Aid Ontario85 Albert Street, Suite 200Ottawa, ONKIP 6A4Telephone: (613) 569-7448Fax: (613) 569-9389

Ottawa Agent for Intervener, CanadianAssociation of Refugee Lawyers (inHernande:. B306, IP. and Gd.. BOJO,Appulonappa)

Martine Cétoute

Clinique Juridique Francophone de Pestd ‘Ottawa290 Dupuis StreetOttawa, ONK1L IA2felephone: (613) 744-2892 Ext. 1114.Fax: (613) 744-3960Email: cetoutem:4lao.onca

Ottawa Agent liar Intervener. Canadian Councilfiar Refugees (in Tlernande:. 8306, J. P. and0.1.. BOlO. .ippu!onappa)

Andrew 1. NathansonGavin R. CameronFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP2900-5 50 Burrard StreetVancouver. British ColumbiaV6C 0A3Telephone: (604) 631-4908Fax: (604) 631-3232

Counsel for Intervener, Canadian CivilLiberties Association (in Ilernande:. B306.IF. and G.i, Appulonappa)

Barbara JackmanAudrey MackimJackman Nazarni & Associates526 St. Clair Avenue West, Unit 3Toronto. ONN46C lA6Telephone: (416) 653-9964Fax: (416) 653-1036Email: barb@bjackman.com

Counsel for Intervener. David Asper Centre forConstitutional Rights (in Hernande:, B306,IF. and C..!,, BUJO)

Raoul Boulakia31 Prince Arthur AvenueToronto. ONM4Y 1W6Telephone: (416) 963-4488 Ext. 135Fax: (416) 960-5456Email: raou1(Iboulakia.ca

Yaei WexierFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP55 Metcalfe Street. Suite 1300Ottawa, ONK1P6L5Telephone: (613) 236-3882Fax: (613) 230-6423Email: vwexlerfasken.com

Ottawa Agent for Intervener, Canadian CivilLiberties Association (in Hernande:. B306.J. P. and GJ, .4ppulonappa)

Martha A. HealeyNorton Rose Fuibright Canada LLP45 O’Connor StreetOttawa. ONKIP 1A4Telephone: (613) 780-8638Fax: (613) 230-5459Email: martha.healeylnortonrose.com

Ottawa Agent for Intervener, David AsperCentre for Constitutional Rights (inHernande:, B306, J.P. and G.J., BOb)

Michael ilossinCommunity Legal Services — Ottawa Carleton1 Nicholas Street, Suite 422Ottawa, ON, KIN 7B7Telephone: (613) 240-7008 Ext. 224Fax: (613) 241-8680Email: bossinm(lao.on.ca

Counsel tbr the Appellant, B306 Ottawa Agent for the Appellant, B306

Rahool P. AgarwalRyan HaukGuy WhiteNorton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP200 Bay StreetRoyal Bank Plaza. South Tower, Suite 3800Toronto, ON M5J 2Z4Telephone: (416) 216-3943Fax: (416) 216-3930Email: rahool.agarwalIdjnortonrose.com

Counsel for Intervener, South Asian LegalClinic of Ontario (in B306. iF. and (LI..BO 10)

Lorne WaidmanWaidman & Associates281 Eglinton Avenue EastToronot, ONM4P 1L3Telephone: (416) 482-6501Fax: (416)489-9618Email: lorneiiDlornewaldman.ca

Counsel for the Appellants, J.P. and GJ.

Rod H.G. HollowayErica OlmsteadLegal Services Society400-510 l3urrard StreetVancouver, BCV6C 3A8Telephone: (604) 601-6078Fax: (604) 682-0956

Counsel for the Appellant, BO 1 0

Fiona Begg218 East 28th AvenueVancouver. BCV5V 2M4Tele.phone: (604) 5582248Fax ((kJb62’

Counsel for the Appellant, FrancisAnthon irn uthu Appulonappa

Sally Gomery

Norton Rose Fuibright Canada LLP1 500-45 O’Connor StreetOttawa, ONKIP 1A4Telephone: (613) 780-8604Fax: (613) 230-5459Email: sally.gomerynoi1onrose.com

Ottawa Agent for Intervener. South AsianLegal Clinic of Ontario (in B306. J.P. andGJ, BOlO)

D. Lynne WattGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP1 60 Elgin Street, Suite 2600Ottawa, ONKIP 1C3Telephone: (613) 786-8695Fax: (613) 788-3509Email: lvnne.watt4igowlings.com

Ottawa Agent for Appellants, J.P. and G.J.and BO 10, Francis Anthonim uthuAppulonappa, Hamalraj Handasamy,Jeyachandran Kanagarajah, VignarajahThevarajah,

Peter H. EdelmannJennifer EllisEdelmann & Co. Law Offices905-207 West Hastings StreetVancouver. BCV6B 1H7Telephone: (604) 646-4684Fax: (604) 648-8043Email: peter@edelmann.ca

Counsel for the Appellant, HamalrajHandasarny

Phillip C. RankinMicab RankinRankin Bond200-157 Alexander StreetVancouver, BCV6A 1B8Telephone: (604) 682-3621Fax: (604) 682-3919

Counsel for the Appellent, JeyachandranKanagarajah

Gregory Delbigio Q.C.Lisa SturgessThorsteinssonsP.O. Box 49123 Twenty-Seventh Floor595 Burrard Street. Three Bentall CentreVancouver, BCV7X 1J2Telephone: (604) 689-1261Fax: (614) 688-4711

Counsel for the Appellant. VignarajahThevarajah

W. Paul RileyBanafsheh SokhansanjPublic Prosecution Service of Canada900-840 Howe StreetVancouver. BCV6Z 2S9Telephone: (604) 666-0704Fax: (604) 666-1599Email: paul.rileysppc-ppsc.gc.ca

Counsel for the Respondent, Her Majesty theQueen

Marlys A. EdwardhDaniel SheppardSack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP1100-20 Dundas St. W.Toronto, ONM5G2G8Telephone: (416) 979-4380Fax: (416) 979-4430Email: medwardh@sgmlaw.com

Counsel for the Intervener, British ColumbiaCivil Liberties Association (in Appulonappa)

François LacasseDirecteur des poursuites pénales du Canada160, rue Elgin1 2iême étageOttawa. ON. K1A 01-18Telephone: (613) 657-4770Fax: (613) 941-7865Email: f1acasseppsc-sppc.gc.ca

Ottawa Agent for the Respondent. Her Majestythe Queen

Colleen BaumanSack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP500-30 Metcalfe St.Ottawa, ONKIP 5L4Telephone: (613) 235-5327Fax: (613) 235-3041Email: cbaurnansgmlaw.com

Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, BritishColumbia Civil Liberties Association (inAppulonappa)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I - OVERVIEW

PART II- QUESTION IN ISSUE 2

PART 111 - ARGUMENT 2

A, Domestic legislation such as the IRPA must be interpreted and applied in conformity

with international human rights law 2

B. The dual purpose of the CA TOC and the Protocol must he reflected in the interpretation

of sections 37(I)(b) and 117 of the IRPA 3

C. Canada’s obligations under the CA JOC, the Protocol, and the Refligee Convention must

all be given full effect 5

D. The human rights consequences of interpreting people smuggling to include refugees

and those who assist refugees amount to violations of international refugee law 6

PART IV - REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 10

PART V - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 11

PART VI — STATUTORY PROVISIONS 15

PART I - OVERVIEW

I. The Court’s decision in this case will have a profound impact. It will influence whether

friends, family, and good Samaritans will be willing to risk criminal prosecution for their

humanitarian efforts to assist those fleeing persecution. It will also determine if refugees will

he exposed to a greater risk of being returned to persecution for having assisted others to

reach safety. If this Court interprets “people smuggling” to include those who assist others in

fleeing persecution for no financial or other material gain, their inadmissibility and/or

criminalization will act as a powerful deterrent to assisting refugees. Ironically, such an

expansive interpretation might increase the likelihood that exploitative smugglers become

the only option for desperate people fleeing persecution.

2. in fleeing persecution, refugees may incidentally assist others in their collective flight. Other

individuals also help refugees for humanitarian reasons. These appeals raise two important

questions: whether such actions should render refugee claimants inadmissible to Canada,

thereby barring them from protection under the Convention Relating to the Status of

Refugees1 (Refugee Convention); and whether assisting refugees for reasons other than

financial or other material gain should constitute an offence. Amnesty International

respectfully urges these questions be answered in the negative.

3. Sections 37(1 )( b) and 11 7 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act2 (IRPA) must be

interpreted in accordance with Canada’s international legal obligations under the United

Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime3 (CA TOC), the Protocol

against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air4 (Protocol), and the Refugee

Convention. An interpretation that fails to distinguish between refugees and those who assist

them in reaching safety for no financial or other material gain, and smugglers who exploit

and profit from this human suffering, is inconsistent with international law. Such an

interpretation has severe consequences: it denies refugees the ability to seek and enjoy

asylum by pena.iizing them for having assisted othei.s i.n fleeing persecution., and exposes

them ta a risk and exuisian. SuAi an. lnterrrelanan cues acanst t1e 3tyeet

28 Juh 1Q51 1 SQ tJNTS 137. Can TS I QQt) No () [Rcñn (inven!froi}.SC 200l. 27 [JR/Mi.15 No ember 7 1/. 2225 INTS 209. 40 LM TM L )

Noen her 20 i 224 UNTS 07 4( CM 4 [1r In! mi / n, n/n

and purpose of the Refitgee Convention, the Protocol, the IRPA and this Court’s

j un sprudence.

PART Il-QUESTION IN ISSUE

4. How should “people smuggling” and “human smuggling” in sections 37(1)(b) and 117 of

the IRPA he interpreted in light of Canadas international human rights obligations?

PART Iii - ARGUMENT

A. Domestic legislation such as the IRPA must be interpreted and applied in conformitywith international human rights law

5. Canada has long recognized that the values and principles enshrined in its international legal

obligations are “relevant and persuasive” sources of law for the purpose of interpreting

domestic statutes.6 Absent express, unequivocal, contrary legislative intent, this Court has

applied a presumption of conformity, requiring domestic law to be interpreted so as to avoid

violations of Canada’s international law obligations.7

6. Canada’s obligations under international human rights law come from a variety of sources.

They are set out in binding treaties that Canada has ratified or acceded to, including the

Refugee Convention, the (A TOC. and the Protocol.

7. Those obligations are also found in the principles of customary international law which form

part of Canadian common law.8 Also relevant are the views of the United Nations (UN)

treaty bodies and agencies charged with reviewing the implementation of treaties, such as

the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Office on Drugs and Crime

(UNODC). and the UN Human Rights Committee. Canadian courts have relied on these

bodies in determining the content and scope of Canada’s international obligations.9

Ezokola u (4enada (1 f!i:enship and Jrnmigrarion. 2013 scc 40 at paras 32. 68, [2013] 2 SCR 678 [Lzokola]. (AninestvInternational Book of Authorities (hereinafter “Al BOA), Tab S, I’nshpanathan v (‘ama/a (4f/n,,ck a ‘K itizenahip and

7 1 4 a — ,,R -.t’- I ( I BO lab t01101’ 4 n’i’o -111 osi’oaioi. [1 QS, 8CR 11 a 348-350. 38 Oil 4 4th 161. per

Al Bfl ft 19 —

\l HO ‘ I iii-, -,‘

So R I i ik] I BOA I JIl 4) 1(1 C 27 0 2 at rm I CouIJ ( 0 45 (Al BOA lab 9)0 I-la; lupil. not 6 at paras 4 a( U BOA lab 8)Ibid at para 39 (Al BOA Tab 8).The vte\ks olahe IJNRCR have assisted this Court in seocral cases. e.g. Ezokula. .cupru note 5 at paras 35. 76-77 (Al BOA, Tab

5): JOtuiu, .upra note 6 at para 26. (Al BOA, Tab 4): ( anadu 0111’iI’77et .ieitci’a/ a 6 1171/. [19931 2 SCR 689 at I 3— 14. 103DT R -.th I ( 3 I 304 Ia b 1) /i in I ii , I .‘ On / / ni I 17/ 1 iii iii [1 9 1 51 R 3 at t at a 1( -1554.56-58 2. 4-75. 62, 128 COO 4/h 2 13. Al BOA. lab 2): ;u.’1pana?1iau, ‘Ilk/li note 5 at rara. 53-54. 61 -62. 98. (41BOA. Tab

8. These international commitments and principles of customary international law are legally

binding on Canada.’° Moreover, Parliament affirmed its intention to abide by Canadas

international commitments in section 3(3)(t) of the IRPA, which provides: “This Act is to he

construed and applied in a manner that [...] complies with international human rights

instruments to which Canada is signatory.”’

B. The dual purpose of the C4TOC and the Protocol must be reflected in theinterpretation of sections 37(1)(b) and 117 of the IRPA

9. The GA TOC and the Protocol are products of careful negotiations between States Parties

and an Inter-Agency Group comprised of the IJNHCR, the Office of the UN High

Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Organization for Migration, and

UNICEF. which wanted to ensure that in addressing people smuggling, the vulnerabilities of

smuggled persons was recognized, and the protection of their human rights guaranteed.’2

10. The resulting CA TOC and Protocol aim to achieve two complementary goals: combatting

transnational organized crime, including people smuggling while protecting the human

rights of smuggled persons. Article 2 of the Protocol explicitly states that its dual purpose is

“[tb prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants [,..J while protecting the rights of

smuggled migrants.”3 Accordingly, the GATOC and the Protocol contain a number of

Articles requiring States Parties to criminalize transnational organized crime, including

people smuggling,’4 and provisions to protect and assist smuggled persons rather than

impose penalties for their manner of arrivali The obligation to protect smuggled persons

“reinforces a notion that smuggled people are also victims of human rights abuses, and [...]has the effect of redirecting smuggling into a human rights discourse.”6

11. Article 19 of the Protocol emphasizes States Parties’ obligations towards refugees:

Nothing in this Protocol shall affect the other rights, obligations and responsibilities ofStates and individuals under international law, including international humanitarianlaw and international human rights law and, in particular, where applicable, the 195 1

P u Hope supra note 6 at pam 39. (Al BOA. Tab 8).supra note 2.. s 3(3At.

P Ad H m Fomm t e o” ‘n I t sn L r r Frmsnatrnat Ameanzed r ‘e / i7 I

ill j As’ a P,gn ( I 4/51/ ft / I / / is 3 sc/i so ma no 1/ 0 / I 1

5/ 1/J 11/0000 0/ J 1/ 3 1/ / / / / 1 1/ji C IA 03 / S 45 StI 0m 3 4

9pjar 290 A l BO lab I I I F /0 A I 10 sOft/fl // /n /1 11 5/ 1 5/ 1

Asrk, Cambridge tjnzsersits Press. 2914 at 3-38 [Csallauher and Das dj (Al BOA, Tab 22).o z ii a ‘iq a note —L Ira — [emphast adlzdj

- I un n te art 1 iii tan, \,,zus.,Iuzz. Ii is A snpt in, te 4 am’131d. ars 5. 16. 19: /1/As suj’rci note 3 art 25.

is e a-, zuu__ t-i ma s [3 tr a P z a” 9 p c 3’ S z i St r -AtI 3 t —

1 Q -.-, S ‘I BO Tab 2

4

Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the principleof non-refoulement as contained therein.17

12. The interpretation of people smuggling and human smuggling under sections 37(1)(b) and

117 of the IRPA must conform to Canada’s international human rights obligations. Fulfilling

the dual purpose of combatting people smuggling arid protecting human rights requires

States Parties to adopt a definition of smuggling that clearly distinguishes between persons,

including refugees, who assist others to reach safety for no financial or other material gain,

and smugglers who profit from human suffering. According to the UNODC’8,it was

the intention of the drafters that the sanctions established in accordance with theProtocol should apply to the smuggling of migrants by organized criminal groups andnot to mere migration of migrants, even in cases where it involves entry or residencethat is illegal under the laws of the State concerned.19

13. The international community has recognized that in seeking asylum, individuals might need

to resort to unlawful acts. Professor Sharon Pickering notes that “most asylum-seekers

require smugglers at some, if not all, stages of their journey[.f2°Further, the UNODC

emphasizes that ‘the criminal smuggling of migrants may involve the movement of

legitimate refugees or asyl urn-seekers.”2’The complex relationship between asylum-seeking

and smuggling requires States Parties to adopt a definition of people smuggling that ensures

the protection of refugees.

14. To distinguish smugglers from refugees, and to ensure protection for those legitimately in

need of it. the international definition of people smuggling requires (a) the intentional

procurement of illegal entry, in order to (b) obtain a financial or other material benefit.22 The

Protocol does not “criminalize altruistic or charitable groups who smuggle people for

purposes other than financial or other material gain.’23 Thus, the exploitative purpose behind

.1 1/era’s! Snlukm/ner /‘n’ioeiii inpil! note 4. au 10.The Aoenev charged Uih monulorinsi the implementatia nofthe 4/O! and the 1rssi. c!lJrnted n ations ()jhoe or Dma, and C t srne Is islam (mid In the snp’ m matson of the osted atOms I ms ems n

Is, sins! i nine!, 051/ Dit ins ee/ an as diii / sole s.d iheie (N ark a tea Nsttons 7004) at fl par 28 lii s/si(s Jail (Al BOA. Tab 191

—— 1BO& Ias,

t41 BO I b IOuC a entss -sanis is an atanes ganszea C in Jd 1 i Jam las 125 ailS e 5 iii I 0i/i 11 5dras. au\prepamatosre ; of Inc nehoisalson of th I isiied \assons I oneenfson 4gasnsi Jsaosoestiooa’ 1?r4ans sd I s sm and f/ItProisscous thercio 55th Sess UN Doe A/551383iAdd,1 (3 November 2000) at paras 88, 02 [/nfesjssvfaflre Uae’sl (A BOA, Tab14)

!s.eissionai 5 mtJ5’i. nIps., note 0 at 345s. para 28 (Al BOA. Tab 19).7 \ its s t )tts Ursa, ice C r ‘ s a sib, / , i so isis

It,eaSiil s \ustrsa oiled Nation 2010 a 8 (41 B04 lab 21)

assisting individuals to cross borders illegally is central to the definition of people

smuggling.

15. By requiring financial or material profit as a defining feature of people smuggling, the

drafters intended “to include the activities of organized criminal groups acting lbr profit, but

to exclude the activities of those who provided support to migrants for humanitarian reasons

or on the basis of close family ties.”23 Professor Andreas Schloenhardt and Hadley Hickson

add that the Protocol “appears to preclude states parties from criminalizing smuggled

migrants who, directly or indirectly, assist in their own smuggling journey.”2 Thus,

individuals whose primary purpose is to seek protection should also not be penalized for

assisting others while collectively fleeing persecution. An interpretation of sections 37(l)(b)

and 11 7 of the IRPA that allows for the prosecution and penalization of family, friends,

humanitarian workers, and refugees themselves for aiding other refugees will discourage

people from assisting refugees. ironically, this will reduce the options available to people

fleeing persecution, and increase the demand for criminal smuggling. Such an outcome

undermines both the Protocol and the Refugee Convention.

C Canada’s obligations under the 4TOC, the Protocol, and the Refugee conventionmust all be given full effect

16. The universal principle of pacta sunt servanda26 set out in the Vienna Convention on the

Law of Treaties (VCLJ) — which codifies customary international law27 — provides that

Canada’s obligations under the (A 7OC, the Protocol, and the Refugee Convention must all

be given full effect. Article 3 1(1) of the VCLT further requires treaties to be “interpreted in

good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to he given to the terms of the treaty in

their context and in light of its object and purpose.”25 The duty of good faith requires States

to refrain from acts that have “the overall effect of rendering the fulfilment of treaty

obligations obsolete, or defeat the object and purpose of a treaty.”29According to the

International Law Commission. “[wihen a treaty is open to two Interpretations one of which

wiNto prn.nirtve Lawn, suprn note 2 at parat. 88. 92. A1 BOA Tab 14.

N a o’ /,_

t ii j4 1 1—

30 at 55-5°. [Sehloenhardt and HtcLon] tAl BOA. Tab 29ji2enna Novenrnin on iha Law of ireatLa. 23 Ma 1969, 1155 UNTS preamble. ao 26. Can TS 1980 No 37 [Vt [1].

ow ( oncLrnrnt, the (yahcikoio \atjmal Ptojcel (Hunc.,a’ i S]o 4440) [1997] ICI Rep 7 at pata 46 fU BO, Tab 12)w lNLT nipra note 26. aC 31(l).1 a I a \ eo - )t 9

2 .. i ( I 130 lab 23

6

does and the other does not enable the treaty to have appropriate effects, good faith and the

objects and purposes of the treaty demand that the former interpretation should be

adopted.° Where norms appear to conflict, “they should, to the extent possible, be

interpreted so as to give rise to a single set of compatible obligations.”

17. Thus. while Article 34(3) of the C47OC permits States Parties to ‘adopt more strict or

severe measures [...] for preventing and combating transnational organized crime[.]”32 the

UN General Assembly, the UNO.DC, and the European Court of Human Rights have all

stated that such measures cannot be undertaken at the expense of States Parties human

rights obligations, which must be given full effect.33 As in the United Kingdom, any laws

imposing penalties on smuggling should be accompanied by exemptions for refugees and

those who assist them for reasons other than profit or other material gain.34 As noted by

Professor Anne Gallagher and Fiona David. while the human rights guaranteed in Article 19

of the Protocol may appear to collide with efforts to combat people smuggling,

the correct outcome has been clearly articulated: a State that acts against the letter orspirit of international law, including international refugee law, in implementing itsobligations under the Migrant Smuggling Protocol is in violation of one of [thelatter’s] central provisions.”’

ft The human rights consequences of interpreting people smuggling to include refugeesand those who assist refugees amount to violations of international refugee law

18. While States have sovereign control over their borders, they also have binding legal

obligations towards refugees and asylum-seekers. Gallagher and David note, “the

entitlement of a State to control the entry of aliens into its territory must be filtered through

the lens of international rules that the State has in one way or another agreed to.”36 In

ratifying the Refugee Convention, States Parties crafted a careful compromise. carving out a

1nternatonai Lan tThmmiuion. Yu,rI’ook 011110 Jnn’,-’na,/oial Lao annna,’n iP6a, ol 11 [N DocACN.4fSER A;1966;Add. 1) at 219, (Al BOA. Tab 17).

1’ S 1 j In —

taxer tinanon and Expansion of International Lao in r rituaL c/41u JNternorrma/ Law ( (mmis un. 240’ ni 2., pan Eeoo P at ed Notion 2u46) na a4 ii Don ‘ ( N iSE 4/20 tO odd I E° t 2 temi taxi ddxd1 (U 804 [ab 16)(“ANON. supro note 3, ao 34(3).

m’ed r onr ( ral A nibi I 11,100 ii d 0 (wi a No rn t ii 05 a a t 45th“ess. [Ni Rex A;RES,487102 8 March 0’4t (Al BOA. Tab IS): iInvi .Ii;ivaa and a/oil v fin/n. [2012] ECHR 27’65. 1)9 at para— I U BO lab 13) Lnited \atjon Ofloe on Dtaix and 0 rine I/il / hi It. Jlfl I/fl \ml[,,/Int_ t tfi.,,i in! I \ wnn i[Ni Office on Druns and Crime. 2410 at S [3l’.n/eI Jan] (Al BOA. Tab 20)

ln1,rn/ 111)0 4l i }1 WK n s 2 4t3)(iallaohnr and Da id slq’ra note 2 at 6a (U BOA lab 22)

“lb/dat 249. (Al BOA Tab 22),

7

category of individuals to which they committed to provide legal status and protection. As

noted by the House of Lords,

the Refugee Convention represented a compromise between competing interests, inthis case between the need to ensure humane treatment of the victims of oppression onthe one hand and the wish of sovereign states to maintain control over those seekingentry to their territory on the other.

According to Hathaway, that compromise “was to refrain from challenging the right of states

to control most immigration, but to require governments to ensure that refugees are not

caught by exclusionary rules.”38

19. States Parties to the Refugee Convention must pay special attention “to situations where the

system of administration may produce results incompatible with the applicable principle or

standard of international law.’°9 The consequences of a section 37(1)(h) inadmissibility

finding are severe. They constitute a penalty on refugees for having assisted others in fleeing

persecution, and expose them to a risk of refoulement and expulsion.4°

20. Refugee claimants found to he inadmissible to Canada for people smuggling are

permanently barred from accessing protection under the Refugee Convention and section 96

of the IRPA. They are issued a mandatory deportation order and receive no statutory stay of

removal pending judicial review.31 The only recourse to protection is a Pre-Renioval Risk

Assessment (PRRA) during which refugees are not entitled to a hearing as required by this

Court in Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration.42nor to have the risks they face

upon removal assessed on the basis of the persecution factors set out in the Refi’gee

Convention and section 96 of the JRPA.43 Therefore, a person with a well-founded fear of

persecution for any of the grounds enumerated in section 96 will not receive refugee

protection, including protection from expulsion or re/.mlement to persecution or other

1(uropean Roma Rights (l’ulre v Jmniigration Officer at Prague .4irpor!. [2004] UKHI. 55, [2005] 2 AC I. para 15. (File No.35685 (B3(16). Respondents Book of Authorities (hereinafter “RBOA). Tab 35). relied on in h this Court m /1/i/es i

mali / , n’h p ii ci ‘inn ,p , 2014 SCC 08 a ara 2’ —( D[ R 0th S’ (File o 368 IBW6) RBO lab 3)James C 1-laehavar. ‘Wh Human Smuculinu Is Vital (he \ooinri,’ 10cr (13 September 11(0 [Hatha\va 3d 1oj (Al BOA,

Tab 25).(ins S oO Occo Gil \ick I ho I9 C orsci non cot no I iT Sta’us o RJn Ce N’ pe’ a Canon D eti

Protecton” (paper prepared at t.he rd lest of the Department ct nternaticnaI i.Vorection fOr the UN.HCR Global Consuitahoiis.,— , File \o 3—9—8 lppul naf pit

Appellants Joint Book of Authorit hercinafter .JBOAt. Vol III. lab 96ihe pr flhnt p ii c\ul on ii o U aimed in mae — aid r the ii /1 1 1 liOtc

fRI 4 upia notc 2 ss 4u di lmnn,, anon intl P In ( Ptoi clIOfl 1 0/00011 SOR _902 22 reg 22n1 11(c) [1k! 4Regulations]° [1985] I SCR j7 at 231. 17 HER (0th) 322. (Al BOA, Tab I 1),

f I — I Ii -1 ‘‘i i ; 1 // I —

-1(latpara5l, 13 lrioniL.Rlthi Ft,tAlB()Tab6J

8

serious human rights violations.44A positive PRRA does not result in refugee protection hut

rather a stay of removal, which can be cancelled at the discretion of the Minister of

Citizenship arid immigration if he or she is of the opinion the circumstances surrounding the

stay have changed.4 Even where a danger of torture or other ill-treatment exists, under

PRRA, refugee claimants are still exposed to expulsion or refoulement if it is determined

that their actions were sufficiently severe or that Ihey constitute a danger to Canada.4°

21. As with a section 37(1)(b) finding of inadmissibility, the maximum penalty for human

smuggling under section 117 renders the person ineligible to access refugee protection in

Canada.47

22. An interpretation of people smuggling that exposes refugee claimants to a risk of

refbuie,nent and expulsion simply for having assisted others in fleeing persecution is a

significant curtailment of rights, amounting to a penalty prohibited by Article 31 of the

Refugee Convention,48 The prohibition against penalizing refugees recognizes that in

seeking asylum, reftigees may need to enter countries of refuge irregularly.49 Hathaway

affirms the applicability of Article 31 to smuggled refugees:

So long as a refugee is seeking [...J access to protection, the incidental entry or presenceof others arising from the same actions should be viewed simply as that: incidental tothe primary and legally protected goal of ensuring that migration control laws do notimpede a refugee from vindicating her or his rights under the Refugee Convention.°

23. According to Hathaway. there is no sound basis to interpret the notion of a ‘penalty’

narrowly.”’ Rather, the prohibition against penalization must be construed broadly in order

to encompass any detriment to seeking asylum for reasons of illegal entry, including

administrative sanctions.2The UNHCR has stressed that

JRPd, supra note 2, s 12(3): (n’arruhias v (iada (lIEnEster oft iiE:enshi and Imminarion). 2006 ECA 365 at para 18.[2007) 3 ICR 169. (Al BOA. Tab 3).

1111(4, allpra note 2. s 114(21.find, s I I3djuil.md ss inl) I 7(2 n I I Ru/anon suorul te 31 ret, 229 1 )ft, d)

b Re/Ngee Convention. supra note I an 3 1(1.).I / f’ ft ‘ I I () 3.

‘ ‘ ,,— F Ir N 4, in 17 p .1BO

‘ 4. 1. lab 25.a nes hatha d\ Pt sattn,, a Ret bLe tot Smu,,, no belt ft,I 4 I S L N I on iatt ‘o Retub & ( uzensh

Law efournal I at 3. (Al BOA, Tab 24),I tme I Flathaw v fhe Rp,hts / RvJu3 cS nod i Inn in inonal in Oet r ork Camhrtdge nterctt Pre 200 1 at 412

[Hathava. 2005] (File No. 35958 (.4ppiilonappa). RBOA. Vol 11. Tab 69).find at 410-412 (File No. 35958 (.4ppiilonappa), RBOA. Vol II. Tab 69): .4dmi. %up!’u note 49 at naras I 5-16. (File No.

35958 tIppu/onappa), A.JBOA, Vol. 1. Tab 25. Goodon-GtlI. ‘opi’o note 39 at 94-195, (File No, 35958 (ApJiuIonuppu)JBO4 ol Ill, Tab 96) lames C Hath as and \4ih lIe FsLr f/tv ,au fIOuii ta/UI dcd tt, amhrtdue C amhndve

9

[amy punitive measure, that is any unnecessary limitation to the full enjoyment ofrights granted to refugees under international refugee law, applied by States againstrefugees who would fall under the protective clause of Article 3 1(1) could, arguably.he interpreted as a penalty.a3

24. The UNODC stated it is essential that smuggled migrants who are in need of international

protection are given a genuine opportunity to seek it.”54 Similarly, the drafters of the

Re/iigee Convention assumed that governments would not exercise their authority to

penalize those assisting refugees to enter an asylum country absent evidence that they had

acted in an exploitative way, or otherwise in bad faith.”55 Penalizing individuals for assisting

refugees impedes refugees’ ability to exercise their rights under the Re,/iigee Convention.6

Much like “[a]s a matter of principle [,..J a carrier should not be penalized for bringing in an

‘undocumented’ passenger, where that person is subsequently determined to be a

refugee[,]’7 States should refrain from penalizing individuals who help refugees flee

persecution in a non-exploitative manner.

25. A treaty interpretation that defeats the object and purpose of that treaty undermines the

VCLrs good faith principle.8 The Re,/itgee Convention’s “overarching and clear human

rights object and purpose[,J”59 and the international community’s “profound concern for

refugees”60 and commitment to grant them the widest scope of protection possible — as this

Court has recognized6’— require sections 37(1 )(b) and 11 7 to be interpreted to distinguish

legitimate refugees and those who assist them in fleeing persecution. from organized

criminals who profit from and exploit reftigees.

26. It is often difficult to draw a clear line between smuggler and smuggled, for “smuggling can

be both the cause and consequence of human rights violations.02Professors David Kyle and

Rey Koslowski add that much migrant smuggling [,..j operates in an ambiguous area that

lntversit Press 2014) at 28-20 (File o. 35958 (ippithmappa) AJBOA, Vol. III. Tab 97) Goodvstn-Gtll and McAdam. snpt’unote 29 at 266, (Al BOA, Tab 23)

t.TN.HCR Deparnent ofirtemational Protection. intem.aI. note. May 2000. as cited ir. Goodwin -Gill, sopra note 39 at 9.Gotnote 4. (File \o, 35958 (..4jsnuIonappa) AJl30.-. ‘oi Ill. Tab 96t.

a note as . ‘a I 30 . Tab 20.2005. .Suai-a no as 5 at 445 File o. 35958 rlpvu!omippuo RBO , ol II. [ab 69)

dathaoas. 2010. uprz note 38. (Al BOA, Tab 25).Goodwin-Gill. supra note 39 at 219. (File No. 35958 t,Appulonappa), AJBOA, Vol III, Tab 96).as ‘IT a/pra note 26, ao 31(1). See also para 16 ofthis factumIdashjaotaihun. snpra note 5. at para 5. (Al BOA Tab ): Ji:’ik,ia. st/pi’a note 5 at para 32. (Al BOA. Tab 5).Rc’fiipec ‘asns’mtan.stq’ra note I. preatnble

/10.4 snp.s note 2. 3(2t. 0: G’/a. stqnas note 5 at para 31. (Al BOA, Tab 5)uhokati wpI note lOst 95 (\l BO& Tab2>

10

is neither purely voluntary nor involuntary from the perspective of the migrant.”63 In other

jurisdictions, scholars have drawn attention to the ofien artificial distinction between

passengers and crew”64 in people smuggling.

27. For this reason, any blanket non-admission of all individuals assisting refugees to access

protection should be rejected.6As stated by Hathaway, “[w]hen Canada single-mindedly

demonizes all smuggling, it runs roughshod over [the] carefully crafted compromise”66 that

States Parties made by developing the Refugee Convention. Such an application of Canada’s

inadmissibility and criminal provisions would be contrary not only to the object and purpose

of the Refugee Convention.67 but also the IRPA. which recognizes that Canada’s oh ligations

towards refugees are in the first instance about saving lives and offering protection.”68As

stated by Gallagher and David, ‘[tjhe international system of refugee protection is not

reserved solely for the virtuous: it is only under exceptional circumstances that entitlement

to seek and receive asylum from persecution may be peremptorily withheld.”69

PART IV - REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

28. The Intervener requests permission of the Court to present oral argument.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 2nd day oFebruary, 2015, BY:

________

]

,J__________________________________

Chantal Tie Lalla Dernirdache

Counsel for Amnesty International70

,nst ersttv press. 200 at 9. (A.i BOA, Tab 26,.9 ch.loenhardt and HGkson, supra note 25 at 56, (Al BOA, Tab 29).Gallagher and Da id. .iupra note 12 at 171. (Al BOA, Tab 22).Hathawas 2010 supianote 38 (l BO I ib 2)Gallagher and David. srqtra note 35 at 171. (Al BOA, Tab 22).

a JRJS4. supra note 2. s 3(2)(a) [emphasis added).Gallagher and David. oqra note 3.5 at 169, (Al BOA, Tab 22).

ursvl 5ar An is t niema tuna1 ask in e tlt tremendou r\ A e hs Ti ( anada t t s tu&ne in 6 as

Michael Bossin

11

PART V - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CANADIAN CASES PARA.

1, Canada (4ttorney General.) v. Ward. [1993] 2 SCR 689, 103 DLR (4th) 1, 7

2. Chan v. Canada ü’vlinisier of Emp/oment and Immigration). [1995] 3 SC’R 593, 7128 DLR(4th)213.

3. Covarrubias v Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 365 20at para 18, [2007] 3 FCR 169.

4. Divito v Canada (Public Sa/ly and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47, 5, 7[2013] 3 SCR 157.

5. Ezoko/a v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40, [2013] 2 SCR 3, 7, 25678.

6. Feb/es v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration,), 2014 SCC 68. 376 DLR (4th) 387 18

7. Hernandez v (anada Pub/ic Safl’ty and Emergency Preparedness, 2012 FC 141 7, 2013 1mm LR (4th) 175.

8, Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration,), [1998] 1 SCR 3, 7, 25982. 150 DLR (4th).

9. R v Hape. [2007] 2 SCR 292, 280 DLR (4th) 385. 5. 7. 8

10. RvSharpe.2001 SCC 2, [2001] 1 SCR45. 5

,, J)“ R

38 D.L.R (4.th)16 I

12. S?ngh v Minister ofEmployment and Immigration. [1985] 1 SCR 177. 17 DLR 204th)422.

12

FOREIGN AND INTERNATIONAL CASES

13. Case Concerning the Gab3Ikovo-Nagymaros Pro/eel (Hungary v Siovakk,i, [1997] 16JCJ Rep 7.

14. European Roma Rights Centre v Immigration OJjIcer at Prague Airport, [2004] 18UKHT, 55, [20051 2 AC 1.

15. Hirsi Jamaa and others v Italy, [2012] ECHR 27 765/09. 17

16. R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court & Anothe,-, cx parte Adimi et a! v Secretary of 22, 23StateJar the Home Department. [1999] EWHC Admin 765, [2001] QB 667 (UK:High Court [England and Wales]).

INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND REPORTS

1 7. Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of a Convention against Transnational 13, 15Organized Crime, Addendum: Interpretative notes for the official records(travauxpréparatoires) of the negotiation oft/ic United Nations Convention Against]}ansnationai Organi;ed Crime and the Protocols thereto. 55th Sess, UN DoeA/55/383/Add.1 (3 November 2000).

18. Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of a Convention against Transnational 9Organized Crime. Note by the Of/ice ofthe United Nations High CommissionerJbrHuman Rights, the United Nations Children ‘s Fund and the InternationalOrgcini:ation for Migration on the drafI protocols concerning migrant smugglingand tra/Jicking in persons, 8th Sess. UN Doe A/AC.254/27 (8 February 2000).

19. Conclusions of the work of the Stud Group on the Fragmentation of International 16Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of international

j Law” in Yearbook oft/ic International Law Commission. 2006, vol 2, part 2 (NewYork: United Nations, 2006) at para 4 (UN Doe A/CN4/SER,A/2006/Add,1 (Part

20. International Law Commission. Yiarhook o/the Internationa! Law Commission: 1 61966. vol II (L\ Doe A/CN.4’SER.A/196&Add.1).

1’,ii

21. United Nations General Assembly. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: 1 7Prevention oft/ic smuggling of aliens. 48th Sess, UN Res A/RES!48/1 02 (8 March1994).

22. I United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Legislative Guides Jbr the 12. 13,J Implementation of/he Lu?ited Aations Convention against Jransnationai 1 4Organized Crime and the Protocols thereto (New York: United Nations, 2004).

23. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Model Law against the Smuggling of 17. 24Migrants (Vienna, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, 2010).

24. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Toolkit to Combat Smuggling of 14Migrants: Tool 8: Protection and assistance measures (Austria: United Nations,2010).

TEXTS

25. Gallagher, Anne ‘F and David, Fiona. The Jnternationai Law ofMigrant Smuggling 9, 1 7,(New York: Cambridge University Press. 2014). 18,27

26. Guy S Goodwin-Gill, “Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of 19, 23.Refugees: Non-penalization, Detention and Protection” (paper prepared at the 24request of the Department of International Protection for the UNHCR GlobalConsultations, October 2001) at para 102 online:<http://www.refworld.org/docid/470a33b1 0.html>

27. Goodwin-Gill. Guy S and McAdam, Jane, The Refugee in international Law, 3d ed 16, 23(New York”. Oxford University Press, 2007).

28. Hathaway. James C, “Prosecuting a Refugee for ‘Smuggling’ Himseli’ (2014) 221 5:81 ISN Immigration. Refugee & Citizenship Law Journal I

29. Haili.awav, 1 ames C, The Rights qi.Reihgees unCr Ihternational .Law (New York: 23, 24Cambridge Uni.versity Press, 2005).

30 11 thasa lames C \\ h Human Smuggling is \ ital the \ational Post ( 13 18 24 ISeptember2010). 27

_1____

14

3 1. Hathaway. James C and Foster. Michelle, The Law iRefitgee Status, 2d ed 23( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014)

32. Kyle, David and Koslowski, Rey. eds, Global Human Smuggling: Comparative 26Perspectives (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University press. 2091.1

33. Obokata, Tom, “Smuggling of Human Beings from a Human Rights Perspective: 10, 26Obligations of Non-State and State Actors under International Human Rights Law”(2005) 17:2Int’lJRefugeeL394.

34. Pickering, Sharon, “Transnational Crime and Refugee Protection” (2007) 34:2 13Social Justice 47.

35. Schloenhardt. Andreas Schloenhardt and 1-lickson. 1-ladley, “Non-Criminalization 15. 26of Smuggled Migrants: Rights, Obligations, and Australian Practice under Article5 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, and Air” (2013)25:1 Int’l J Refugee L 39

15

PART VI - STATUTORY PROVISIONS

STATUTES PARA.

1. Immigration Act 1971 (UK), c 77. 17

2. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. SC 2001. c 27. 3,8,20,21,25,27

3. Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. SOR /2002-227 20. 21

TREATIES

4. Convention Relating to the Status ofRefugees, 28 July 1951, 189 2, 22, 25UNTS 137, Can TS 1969No6.

5. Protocol against the Smuggling ofMigrants by Lancf Sea and Air, 15 3, 10, 1 1,November 2000, 2241 UNTS 507, 40 ILM 384.

6. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized crime, 3, 10, 1715 November 2000, 2225 UNTS 209, 40 !LM 335.

7. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1 155 UNTS 16,2526, Can TS 1980 No 37.

16

Immigration Act 1971 (UK), c 77.

25A. Helping asylum-seeker to enter United Kingdom

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he knowingly and for gain facilitates the arrival in, or the entry into, the United Kingdom ofan individual, and

(h) he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the individual is an asylum-seeker.

(2) In this section “asylum-seeker” means a person who intends to claim that to remove him fromor require him to leave the United Kingdom would be contrary to the United Kingdom’sobligations under—

(a) the Refugee Convention (within the meaning given by section 167(1) of the Immigration andAsylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (interpretation)), or

(h) the Human Rights Convention (within the meaning given by that section).

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of anorganisation which—

(a) aims to assist asylum-seekers, and

(h) does not charge for its services.

(4) Subsections (4) and (6) of section 25 apply for the purpose of the offence in subsection (1) ofthis section as they apply for the purpose of the offence in subsection (1) of that section.

17

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.

3. (2) The objectives of this Act with respect torefugees are

(a) to recognize that the refugee program is inthe first instance about saving lives andoffering protection to the displaced andpersecuted;

(b) to fulfil Canada’s international legalobligations with respect to refugees and affirmCanada’s commitment to international effbrtsto provide assistance to those in need ofresettlement;

(c) to grant, as a fundamental expression ofCanad& s humanitarian ideals. furconsideration to those who come to Canadaclaiming persecution;

(d) to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race,religion, nationality, political opinion ormembership in a particular social group, aswell as those at risk of torture or cruel andunusual treatment or punishment;

(e) to establish fair and efikient proceduresthat will maintain the integrity of the Canadianrefugee protection system, while upholdingCanada’s respect for human rights andfundamental freedoms of all human beings:

(/) to support the self-sufficiency and the socialand economic well-being of refugees byfacilitating reunification with their familymembers in Canada:

(g) to protect the health and safety ofCanadians and to maintain t.he security of( anadian s ciet: and

(Ii) to promote international justice and securityby denying access to Canadian territory topersons. including refugee claimants. ho aresecurity risks or serious criminals.

3. (2) S’agissant des réfugiés, Ia présente loi apour objet:

a) de reconnaItre que Ic programme pour lesréfugiés vise avant tout a sauver des vies et aprotéger les personnes de Ia persecution:

b) de remplir les obligations en droitinternational du Canada relatives aux refugiéset aux personnes déplacées et d’affirmer Iavolonté du Canada de participer aux effbrts deIa communauté international pour venir en aideaux personnes qui doivent se reinstaller;

c) de faire bénéficier ceux qui fuient Iapersecution d’ une procedure équ itable reflétantles idCaux humanitaires du Canada;

d) d’offrir l’asile a ceux qui craignent avecraison d’être persécutCs du fait de leur race.leur religion, leur nationalité, leurs opinionspolitiques, leur appartenance a un groupesocial en particulier, ainsi qu’à ceux quirisquent Ia torture ou des traitements ou peinescruels et inusités;

e) de mettre en place une procedure equitableet efticace qui soit respectueuse. d’une part, deI’intégrité du processus canadien d’asile et,d’autre part, des droits et des libertésfondarnentales reconnus a tout être humain:

f) d’encourager I’autonomie et Ic hien-Ctresocioéconomique des réfugiés en facilitant Iareunification de leurs families au Canada:

g) de proteger Ia sante des Canadiens et degarantir leur sCcuritC;

Ii) de rromauvoi a I eche e internatioim Ic. Iastcurite et Ia justice par Iinterdiction duterritoire aux personnes et dernandeurs d’asilequi sont de grands criminels ou constituent undanger pour la sCcuritC.

18

3. (3) This Act is to be construed and applied 3. (3) L’interprétation et Ia misc en oeuvre dein a manner that Ia présente Ioi doivent avoir pour effet:

(f complies with international human rights ,fl de se conformer aux instrumentsinstruments to which Canada is signatory. internationaux portant sur les droits de

Fhomme dont le Canada est signataire

37. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign 37. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pournational is inadmissible on grounds of criminalité organisée faits suivants:organized criminality for

b) se livrer, dans the cadre de Ia criminal ité(b) engaging, in the context of transnational transnationale, a des activités telles Ic passagecrime. in activities such as people smuggling, de clandestins. Ic trafic de personnes ou Ictrafficking in persons or money laundering. recyclage des produits de Ia criminalité.

19

96. A Convention refugee is a person who, byreason of a well-founded fear of persecutiontbr reasons of race. religion, nationality.membership in a particular social group orpolitical opinion,

(a) is outside each of their countries ofnationality and is unable or, by reason of thatfear, unwilling to avail themself of theprotection of each of those countries: or

(b) not having a country of nationality, isoutside the country of their former habitualresidence and is unable or, by reason of thatfear, unwilling to return to that country.

97. (1) A person in need of protection is aperson in Canada whose removal to theircountry or countries of nationality or, if theydo not have a country of nationality, theircountry of former habitual residence. wouldsubject them personally

(a) to a danger, believed on substantial groundsto exist, of torture within the meaning ofArticle 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or

(b) to a risk to their life or a risk of cruel andunusual treatment or punishment if

(i) the person is unable or, because olthat risk, unwilling to availthem self of the protection of that

country,

(ii) the risk would he faced by theperson i.n.. every part of that cour.tryand is not theed eeneraH’ i,x othermdd idnais n or from that couni.r

(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidentalto lawful sanctions. unless imposed indisregard of accepted internationalstandards, and

96. A qualite de réfugié ati sens de laConvention — Ic réfugié — Ia personne qui,craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du faitde sa race. de sa religion, de sa nationalité. dcson appartenance a un groupe social ou de sesopinions politiques:

a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont dIe a Ianationalité et ne peut on, du fait de cettccrainte, ne veut se réclamer de Ia protection dechacun de ces pays:

b) soit, si dIe n’a pas de nationalité et se trouvehors du pays dans lequel dIe avait sa residencehabituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte,ne veut y retourner.

97. (1) A qualite de personne a protéger Iapersonne qui se trouve au Canada et seraitpersonnellement, par son renvoi vers tout paysdont dIe a Ia nationalité OU, si dIe n’a pas denationalité. dans lequel dIe avait sa residencehabituelle, exposed:

a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux deIc croire, dCtre soumise a Ia torture au sens del’article premier de Ia Convention contre Iatorture;

h) soit a une menace a sa vie ou au risque detraitements on peines cruels et inusités dans Iccas suivant:

i) dIe ne pent on, de cc faiL ne ventse rdc lamer de Ia protection de ccpays.

i.i) cite y est exposde et tout lieu decc pays alors que dautrc pcrsonnesorimnaires de cc pays on qui strouvent ne Ic sont gCnCralernentpas,

iii) Ia menace on Ic risque ne résultepas de sanctions lCgitirnes sauf

20

(iv) the risk is not caused by’ theinability of that country to provideadequate health or medical care.

(2) A person in Canada who is a member of aclass of persons prescribed by the regulationsas being in need of protection is also a personin need of protection.

101. (1) A claim is ineligible to be referred tothe Refugee Protection Division if

(/) the claimant has been determine to beinadmissible on grounds of security, violatinghuman or international rights, seriouscriminality or organized criminality, except forpersons who are inadmissible solely’ on thegrounds of paragraph 35(1 )(c).

113. Consideration of an application forprotection shall be as follows:

(d) in the case of an applicant described insubsection 112(3) other than one described insubparagraph (e)(i) or (ii) -- consideration shallhe on the basis of the factors set out in section97 and

(I m The ease an appljcanT brprctec tion ho is inadmissible ongrounds ot’ serious criminality,whether they are a danger to thepublic in Canada. or

celles infligées au mépris desnormes internationales — et inhérentsa celles-ci on occasionnés par dIes.

iv) Ia menace on Ic risque ne résultepas de Fincapacité dii pay’s defournir des soins mCdicaux ou desante adequats.

(2) A également qualité de personne a protégerIa personne qui se trouve au Canada et faitpartie d’une categoric de personnes auxquellesest reconnu par reglement Ic besoin deprotection.

lOl. (1) Lademande est irrecevable dans lescas suivants:

/) prononcé dinterdiction de territoire pourraison de sécurité on pour atteinte aux droitshumains ou internationaux — exception faitedes personnes interdites de territoire au seultitre de l’alinéa 35(1 )(c) —. grande criminalitéon criminalité organisée.

1 13. It est dispose de Ia demande comme ilsuit:

d) s’agissant du demandeur visé an paragraphe1 12(3) — sauf celui visé au sous-alinéa e)(i) ou(ii) sur Ia base des éléments mentionnés aParticle 97 et. cFautre part:

I soit du thit que’ be demandeur interditde rerritoire pour grande criminalitCconstitue un danger pow’ Ic publiC anCanada.

(ii) in the case of any other applicant. ii) soit, dans the eas de tout autre

whether the application should berefused because of the nature andseverity of acts committed by theapplicant or because of the danger thatthe applicant constitutes to the security’of Canada[.1

21

demandeur, du fait que Ia dernandedevrait être rejetée en raison de lanature et de Ia gravité de ses actespasses ou du danger quiI constituepour Ia sécurité du Canada[.j

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR /2002-227

229. (1) For the purposes of paragraph45(d) of the Act, the applicable removal orderto be made by the Immigration Division is

[...]

(c) a deportation order, in the case of apermanent resident inadmissible undersubsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds ofserious criminality or a foreign nationalinadmissible under paragraph 36(1 )(b) or (c) ofthe Act on grounds of serious criminality;

(d) a deportation order, if they are inadmissibleunder subsection 37(1) of the Act on groundsof organized criminality;

(e) a deportation order, if they are inadmissibleunder subsection 37(1) of the Act on groundsof organized criminality:

229. (1) Pour l’application de l’alinéa 45d) deIa Loi. Ia Section de l’imrnigration prendcontre Ia personne Ia mesure de renvoiindiquée en regard du motif en cause:

[.1

c) en cas d’interdiction de territoire pourgrande criminalité du resident permanent autitre du paragraphe 36(1) de Ia Loi on del’étranger au titre des alinéas 36(1 )b) ou c) deIa Loi, l’expulsion;

d) en cas d’interdiction de territoire pourcriminalité au titre des alinéas 36(2)b), c) ou d)de Ia Loi, l’expulsion:

e) en cas d’interdiction de territoire pourcriminalité organisée au titre du paragraphe37(1) de Ia Loi, l’expulsion;

F.. .1

23

United Nations convention Relating to the Status ofRefugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U NTS 137,

Preamble

Can TS 1969 No 6.

Préambule

The high contracting parties.

Considering that the Charter of the UnitedNations and the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights approved on 10 December1948 by the General Assembly have affirmedthe principle that human beings shall enjoyfundamental rights and freedoms withoutdiscrimination,

Considering that the United Nations has, onvarious occasions, manifested its profoundconcern for refugees and endeavoured toassure refugees the widest possible exerciseof these fundamental rights and freedoms,

Considering that it is desirable to revise andconsolidate previous international agreementsrelating to the status of refugees and to extendthe scope of and protection accorded by suchinstruments by means of a new agreement,

Considering that the grant of asylum mayplace unduly heavy burdens on certaincountries, and that a satisfactory solution of aproblem of which the United Nations hasrecognized the international scope and naturecannot therefore be achieved withoutinternational co-operation.

Expressing the wish that all States,recognizing the social and humanitariannature of the problem of retligees. will doeverything within their pover to pre\ cut thisproblem from becoming a cause of’ tension

between States.

Les hautes parties contractantes.

Considérant que Ia Charte des Nations Unieset Ia Declaration universelle des droits del’hornme approuvée le 10 décembre 1948 parl’Assemblée générale ont affirmé cc principeque les Ctres humains, sans distinction,doiventjouir des droits de l’homme et deslibertés fondamentales,

Considérant que l’Organisation des NationsUnies a, a plusieurs reprises, manifesté Iaprofonde sollicitude quelle éprouve pour lesrefugiés et qu’elIe s’est prCoccupée d’assurera ceux-ci l’exercice Ic plus large possible desdroits de l’homme et des libertésfbndamentaies,

Considérant qu’il est desirable de reviser etde codifier les accords internationauxantérieurs relatifs au statut des réfugiés etd’étendre l’application de ces instruments etIa protection qu’ils constituent pour lesrefugies au moyen d’un nouvel accord,

Considérant qu’il peut résulter de l’octroi dudroit d’asile des charges exceptionellementlourdes pour certains pays et que Ia solution

satisfaisante des problèmes dontl’Organisation des Nations Unies a reconnu Iaportée et Ic caractère internationaux, nesaurait, dans cette hypothèse, Ctre obtenuesans tine solidarité internationale,

Exprimant Ic vvu que tons les Etats.reconnalssant Ic caractCre social ethumanitaire du prohlème des rCtuigi’s. thssenttout cc qui est en leur pouvoir pouréviter que cc problCme ne devienne une causede tension entre Etats.

24

Noting that the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees is charged withthe task of supervising internationalconventions providing for the protection ofrefugees, and recognizing that the effectiveco-ordination of measures taken to deal withthis problem will depend upon the cooperation of States with the HighCommissioner.

have agreed as follows:

Article 1. Definition of the Term “Refugee”

A. For the purposes of the presentConvention, the term “refugee” shall apply toany person who:

(2) ... owing to well-founded fear of beingpersecuted for reasons of race. religion,nationality, membership of a particular socialgroup or political opinion, is outside thecountry of his nationality and is unable or,owing to such fear, is unwilling to availhimself of the protection of that country; orwho, not having a nationality and beingoutside the country of his former habitualresidence as a result of such events, is unableor, owing to such fear, is unwilling to returnto it.

Prenant acte de cc que Ic Haut Comm issairedes Nations Unies pour les réfugiés a pourtãche de veiller a l’application desconventions internationales qui assurent Iaprotection des réfugiés, et reconnaissant queIa coordination effective des mesures prisespour résoudre cc problème dépendra de Iacooperation des Etats avec Ic HautComm issaire,

Sont convenues des dispositions ci-après

Article premier. Definition du Terme“Réfugié”

A. Aux fins de Ia présente Convention, Icterme “réfugié” s’appliquera a toute personne:

(2) Qui, ... craignant avec raison dêtrepersécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion,de sa nationalité, de son appartenance a uncertain groupe social ou de ses opinionspolitiques, se trouve hors du pays dont dIe aIa nationalité et qui ne peut ou, du fait de cettecrainte, ne veut se réclamer de Ia protectionde cc pays ; ou qui, si dIe n’a pas denationalité et se trouve hors du pays danslequel dIe avait sa residence hahituelle a Iasuite de tels événements, ne peut ou, en raisonde ladite crainte, ne veut y retourner,

25

Article 31. Refugees Unlawfully in theCountry of Refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not imposepenalties, on account of their illegal entry orpresence, on refugees who, coming directlyfrom a territory where their life or freedomwas threatened in the sense of article 1, enteror are present in their territory withoutauthorization, provided they presentthemselves without delay to the authoritiesand show good cause for their illegal entry orpresence.

Article 32. Expulsion

1. The Contracting States shall not expel arefugee lawfully in their territory save ongrounds of national security or public order.

2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall beonly in pursuance of a decision reached inaccordance with due process of law. Exceptwhere compelling reasons of national securityotherwise require, the refugee shall beallowed to submit evidence to clear himself.and to appeal to and be represented for thepurpose before competent authority or aperson or persons specially designated by thecompetent authority.

3. The Contracting States shall allow such arefugee a reasonable period within which toseek legal admission into another country.The Contracting States reserve the right toapply during that period such internal.t.easures as they may deem. necessary.

Article 31. Réfugiés en Situation lrreguliéredans Ic Pays d’Accueil

1. Les Etats Contractants n’appliqueront pasde sanctions pénales, du fait deleur entrée ou de leur séjour irréguliers. auxrefugies q iii, arrivant directement du territo ireoO leur vie ou leur liberté était menacée ausens prévu par l’article premier, entrent ou setrouvent sur leur territoire sans autorisation,sous Ia reserve qu’ils se présentent sans dClaiaux autorités et leur exposent des raisonsreconnues valables de leur entrée ou presenceirrégul i ères.

Article 32. Expulsion

1. Les Etats Contractants n’expulseront unrefugie se trouvant réguliêrement sur leurterritoire que pour des raisons de sécuriténationale ou d’ordre public.

2. L’expulsion de cc réfugié n’aura lieu qu’enexecution d’une decision rendueconformément a la procedure prévue par Ialoi. Le rCfugié devra, saufsi des raisonsimpérieuses de sécurité nationale s’yopposent, Ctre admis a fournir des preuvestendant a Ic disculper. a presenter un recourset a se faire représenter a cet effet devant uneautorité compétente ou devant une ouplusieurs personnes spécialement dCsignéespar l’autoritd compétente.

3. Les Etats Contractants accorderont i un telréfugié on dClai raisonnable pour liiipermettre de chercher a se faire admettreréguliCrernent dans on autre pays. Les EtatsContractants peuvent appliquer, pendant ccddlai, teile mesure d’ord.re interne qu’ilsugeront oppo.rtune.

Article 33. Prohibition of Expulsion orReturn (“Refoulement”)

1. No Contracting State shall expel or return(refouler”) a refugee in any mannerwhatsoever to the frontiers of territorieswhere his life or freedom would be threatenedon account of his race. religion, nationality.membership of a particular social group orpolitical opinion.

26

Article 33. Defense dTxpulsion et deRe lou lernent

I. Aucun des Etats Contractants n’expulseraou ne refoulera. de quelque manière que ccsoiL un réfugié sur les froniières desterritoires oü sa vie ou sa liherté seraitmenacée en raison de sa race, de sa religion,de sa nationalité, de son appartenance a uncertain groupe social ou de ses opinionspOl itiques.

27

United Nations convention Relating to the Status ofRefugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137,Can TS 1969 No 6.

Article 1. Definition of the Term “Refugee”

A. For the purposes of the presentConvention, the term refugee” shall apply toany person who:

(2) ... owing to well-founded fear of beingpersecuted for reasons of race, religion,nationality, membership of a particular socialgroup or political opinion, is outside thecountry of his nationality and is unable or,owing to such fear, is unwilling to availhimself of the protection of that country; orwho, not having a nationality and beingoutside the country of his former habitualresidence as a result of such events, is unableor, owing to such fear, is unwilling to returnto it.

Article 31. Refugees Unlawfully in theCountry of Refuge

I. The Contracting States shall not imposepenalties. on account of their illegal entry orpresence. on refugees who. coming directlyfrom a territory where their life or freedomwas threatened in the sense of article I. enteror are present in their territory withoutauthorizataon, provided they presentthemse.ives without del.ay to the authoritiesand show good cause thr their ill.egai e:ntry orpresence.

Article premier. Definition du Terme“RefiigiC”

A. Aux fins de Ia présente Convention. Icterme “réfugié” sappliquera a toute personne:

(2) Qui, ... craignant avec raison d’êtrepersécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion,de sa nationalité, de son appartenance a uncertain groupe social ou de ses opinionspolitiques, se trouve hors du pays dont dIe aIa nationalité et qui iie peut ou, du fait de cettecrainte. ne veut se réclarner de Ia protectionde cc pays ou qui, si die n’a pas denationalité et se trouve hors du pays danslequel dIe avait sa residence habituelle a Iasuite de tels événements, ne peut ou, en raisonde ladite crainte, ne veut y retourner.

Article 31. RCfugiés en Situation Irréguiieredans le Pays d’Accueil

1. Les Etats Contractants n’appliqueront pasde sanctions pénales, du fait deleur entrée on de leur séjour irréguliers. auxréfugiés qui. arrivant direetement du territoireoO leur vie on leur liherté était menaeée ansens préu par IariicIe premier, entrent on setrouvent sur leur territoire sans autorisation,sous Ia reserve qu’ us se I. résentent sans dé.iaiaux autoritCs et leur exposent des raisonsreconnues valabies de leur entrée on presenceirréguliëres.

Article 33. Prohibition of Expulsion orReturn (“Refoulement”)

1, No Contracting Statc shall expel or return(“refouler”) a refugee in any mannerwhatsoever to the frontiers of territorieswhere his life or freedom would he threatenedon account of his race, religion, nationality.membership of a particular social group orpolitical opinion.

28

Article 33. Defense d’Expuls ion et deRefoulement

I. Aucun des Etats Contractants nexpulseraou ne refoulera, de quelque manière que ccsoit. tin refugiC stir les frontiéres desterritoires oi sa vie ou sa liberté seraitmenacée en raison de sa race. de sa religion.de sa nationalité. de son appartenance a tincertain groupe social ou de ses opinions

politiques.

29

Protocol against the Smuggling ofMigrants by Land, Sea andAir, 15 November 2000, 2241UNTS 507, 40 ILM 384.

Article 2. Statement of purpose

The purpose of this Protocol is to prevent andcombat the smuggling of migrants as well as topromote cooperation among States Parties tothat end. while protecting the rights ofsmuggled migrants.

Article 5. Criminal liability of migrants

Migrants shall not become liable to criminalprosecution under this Protocol for the fact ofhaving been the object of conduct set forth inarticle 6 of this Protocol.

Article 6. Criminalization

I. Each State Party shall adopt such legislativeand other measures as may be necessary toestablish as criminal offences. when committedintentionally and in order to obtain, directly orindirectly, a financial or other material benefit:

(a) The smuggling of migrants;

(b) When committed for the purpose ofenabling the smuggling of migrants:

(i) Producing a fraudulent travel oridentity document;

(ii) Procuring, providing or possessingsuch a document

(cd Enabling a person vho is not a national or apermanent resident to remain in the Stateeoncerned v ithot enipRin with thenecessary requirementN ibr legall remaininein the State by the means mentioned insubparagraph (h) of this paragraph or any otherillegal means.

Article 2. Objet

Le present Protocole a pour objet de prévenir etcomhattre Ic trafic illicite de migrants. ainsi depromouvoir Ia cooperation entre les EtatsParties a cette fin, tout en protCgeant les droitsdes migrants objet dun tel trafic.

Article 5. ResponsibilitC pCnale des migrants

Les migrants ne deviennent pas passibles depoursuites pénales en vertu du presentProtocole du fait qu’ils ont Cté l’objet des actesénoncés a sonarticle 6.

Article 6. Incrimination

I. Chaque Etat Partie adopte les mesureslégislatives et autres nécessaires pour conférerIc caractère d’infraction pénale, lorsque lesactes ont été commis intentionnellement etpour en tirer, directement ou indirectement, unavantage financier ou autre avantage materiel:

a) Au trafic illicite de migrants;

b) Lorsque les actes ont été commis afin depermettre Ic trafic illicite de migrants:

i) A Ia fabrication dun document devoyage ou d’identité frauduleux;

ii) Au fait de procurer. de foumir ou depossCder un tel document:

C) Au tait de permettre a une personne. quinest lii on ressortssant n an residentpermanent. de demeurer dans I Etat concerne.sans satisfaire aux conditions néeessaires ansejour legal dans ledit Etat. par les movensmentionnés a lalmea h du present paragrapheon pai tons autres moxens illCgaux.

30

2. Each State Party shall also adopt suchlegislative and other measures as may benecessary to establish as criminal offences:

(a) Subject to the basic concepts of its legalsystem, attempting to commit an offenceestablished in accordance with paragraph I ofthis article;

(b) Participating as an accomplice in anoffence established in accordance withparagraph 1(a), (b)(i) or (C) of this article and.subject to the basic concepts of its legalsystem, participating as an accomplice in anoffence established in accordance withparagraph I of this article;

(c) Organizing or directing other persons tocommit an offence established in accordancewith paragraph I of this article.

Article 16. Protection and assistance measures

1. In implementing this Protocol, each StateParty shall take, consistent with its obligationsunder international law, all appropriatemeasures, including legislation if necessary, topreserve and protect the rights of persons whohave been the object of conduct set forth inarticle 6 of this Protocol as accorded underapplicable international law, in particular theright to life and the right not to be subjected totorture or other cruel., i.nhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment,

2. Each State Party shall take appropriatemeasures to afford migrants appropriate

2. Chaque Etat Partie adopte également lesmesures législatives et autres nécessaires pourconlérer Ic caractère d’infraction pénale:

a) Sous reserve des concepts fondamentaux deson système juridique, au fait de tenter decommettre une infraction Ctablieconformément au paragraphe Idu present article:

b) Au fait de se rendre complice d’uneinfraction établie conformCment a l’alinéa a, al’alinéa h i ou a l’alinCa c du paragraphe I dupresent article et, sous reserve des conceptsfondamentaux de son système juridique, au faitde se rendre complice d’une infraction établieconformCment a l’alinéa b ii du paragraphe Idu present article:

c) Au fait d’organiser Ia commission d’uneinfraction établie conformément au paragraphe I du present article ou dedonner des instructions a d’autrespersonnes pour qu’elles Ia commettent.

Article 16. Mesures de protection etd’assistance

1. Lorsqu’il applique Ic present Protocole,chaque Etat Partie prend, conformément auxobligations qu’il a contractées en vertu dii droitinternational. toutes les mesures appropriCes, ycompris. s’il y a lieu. des mesures législatives,pour sauvegarder et protCger les droits despersonnes qui ont Cté l’objet des actes énoncésa l’article 6 dii present Protocole, tels que cesdroi.ts le.u.r soiit accord.Cs en vertu du droitinternational applicable, en particulier le droit aIa vie et Ic droit d ne pas ëtre soumi.s a Iatorture on a dautres peines cal trairementscruels. inhumains oii dCgradants.

2. Chaque Etat Partie prend les mesuresappropriées pour accorder aux migrants une

31

protection against violence that may beinflicted upon them, whether by individuals orgroups, by reason of being the ohect ofconduct set forth in article 6 of this Protocol.

3. Each State Party shall afford appropriateassistance to migrants whose lives or safer areendangered by reason of being the object ofconduct set forth in article 6 of this Protocol.

4. In applying the provisions of this article,Slates Parties take into account the specialneeds of women and children.

5. In the case of the detention of a person whohas been the object of conduct set forth inarticle 6 of this Protocol, each State Party shallcomply with its obligations under the ViennaConvention on Consular Relations, whereapplicable, including that of informing theperson concerned without delay about theprovisions concerning notification to andcommunication with consular officers.

Article 19. Saving clause

1. Nothing in this Protocol shall affect theother rights, obligations and responsibilities ofStates and individuals under international law,including internalional humanitarian law aridinternational human rights law and, inparticular, where applicable, the 195 1Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating tothe Status of Refugees and the principle ofnonrefoulernent as contained therein.

protection adequate contre toute violencepouvant leur Ctre infligé, aussi bien par despersonnes que par des groupes, du fait quilsont été l’objet des actes énoncés a l’article 6 dupresent Protocole.

3. Chaque Etat Partie accorde tine assistanceappropriée aux migrants dont Ia vie ou Iasécurité sont mises en danger par Ic fait qu’ilsont etC l’objet des actes énoncés ñ l’article 6 dupresent Protocole.

4. Lorsqu’ils appliquent les dispositions dupresent article. les Etats Parties tiennentcompte des besoins particuliers des femmes etdes enfants.

5. En cas de detention d’une personne qui a etCl’ohjet des actes énoncés a l’article 6 dupresent Protocole, chaque Etat Partie respecteles obligations qu’il a contractées en vertu de IaConvention de Vienne sur les relationsconsulaires, dans les cas applicables, y comprisl’obligation d’informer sans retard Ia personneconcernée des dispositions relatives a Ianotification aux fonctionnaircs consulaires et aIa communication avec ces derniers.

Article 19. Clause de sauvegarde

1. Aucune disposition du present Protocole n’ad’incidences sur les autres droits, obligations etresponsabilités des Etats et des particuliers envertu du droit international, y compris du droitinternational humanitaire et du droitinternational relative aux droits de l’homme eten particulier, lorsqu’ils s’appliquent, dc IaConvention de 195 1 et du Protocole de 1 967reiati.i.s an statut des rCfu iCs ainsi que duprincipe de nonrefouIement qui ‘es énoncC.

32

United Nations convention against Transnational Organized crime, 15 November 2000,2225 UNTS 209, 40 ILM 335.

ArticleS. Criminalization of participation inan organized criminal group

1. Each State Party shall adopt suchlegislative and other measures as may benecessary to establish as criminal offences.when committed intentionally:

(a) Either or both of the following ascriminal offences distinct from thoseinvolving the attempt or completion of thecriminal activity:

(i) Agreeing with one or more otherpersons to commit a serious crimefor a purpose relating directly orindirectly to the obtaining of afinancial or other material benefitand, where required by domestic law,involving an act undertaken by oneof the participants in furtherance ofthe agreement or involving anorganized criminal group:

(ii) Conduct by a person who, withknowledge of either the aim andgeneral criminal activity of anorganized criminal group or itsintention to commit the crimes inquestion, takes an active part in:

a. Criminal activities of theorganized criminal group:

b. Other activities of theorganized criminal group in theknow ledee that his or herparticipation wiN contribute tothe achievement ot the aboedescribed criminal aim:

(h) Organizing. directing. aiding. abetting.facilitating or counselling the commission of

Article 5. Incrimination de Ia participation aun groupe criminel organise

1. Chaque Etat Partie adopte les mesureslégislatives et autres nécessaires pourconférer le caractère d’infraction pénale.lorsque commis intentionnellement:

a) A Fun ou l’autre des actes suivants ou auxdeux, en tant qu’infractions pénalesdistinctes de celles impliquant une tentatived’activité criminelle ou sa consommation:

i) Au fait de s’entendre avec une onplusieurs personnes en vue decommettre une infraction grave a unetin liée directernent ou indirecternent aFobtention d’un avantage financier ouautre avantage materiel et, lorsque Icdroit interne Fexige, impliquant

un acte commis par tin des participants

en vertu de cette entente ou impliquantun groupe criminel organisé:

ii) A Ia participation active d’unepersonne ayant connaissance soit

du but et de l’activité criminellegénérale d’un groupe criminel

organisé soit de son intention decomrnettre les infractions en question:

du groupe criminel oreanise:

h. A dautres activitCs duaroupe criminci organisC

33

serious crime involving an organizedcriminal group.

Article 25. Assistance and protection ofvictims

1, Each State Party shall take appropriatemeasures within its means to provideassistance and protection to victims ofoffences covered by this Convention, inparticular in cases of threat of retaliation orintimidation.

2. Each State Party shall establishappropriate procedures to provide access tocompensation and restitution for victims ofoffences covered by this Convention.

3. Each State Party shall, subject to itsdomestic law, enable views and concerns ofvictims to be presented and considered atappropriate stages of criminal proceedingsagainst offenders in a manner not prejudicialto the rights of the defence.

Article 33. lmplenentation of the Convention

3 Each State Parh ma adopt more strict orsevere measures than those pro1ded for bthis Convention for preventing and combatingtransnational organized crime.

lorsque cette personne saitque sa participationcontrihuera a Ia réalisation dubut criminel susmentionné

b) Au fait d’organiser. de diriger, defaciliter. d’encourager ou de fiworiser aumoyen d’une aide oti de conseils Iacommission d’une infraction graveimpliquant un groupe criminel organisé.

Article 25. Octroi d’une assistance andd’une protection aux victimes

1. Chaque Etat Partie prend, dans Ia limitede ses moyens, des mesures appropriéespour préter assistance et accorder protectionaux victimes d’infractions visées par Iaprésente Convention, en particulier dans lescas de menace de représailles oud’intimidation.

2. Chaque Etat Partie établit des proceduresappropriées pour permettre aux V ictimesd’infractions visées par Ia prCsenteConvention d’obtenir reparation.

3. Chaque Etat Partie, sous reserve de sondroit interne, fait en sorte que les avis etpreoccupations des victimes soient présentéset pris en compte aux stades appropriés de Iaprocedure pénale engagée contre les auteursd’infractions, d’une maniCre qui ne porte pasprejudice aux droits de Ia defense.

Article 33. Application de in Convention

3 E haue Etat Paiiie pent adopter desmesures plus strictes ou IIus sCveres quecelles qui sont prévues par Ia prCsenteConvention afin de prévenir et de combattreIa criminalité transnationale organisée.

34

Vjeiina (onventjo,, oil the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 33lart 26, Can TS1980 No 37.

Preamble Préambu le

The States Parties to the present Convention.

Considering the fundamental role of treaties inthe history of international relations.

Recognizing the ever-increasing importance oftreaties as a source of international law and asa means of developing peaceful cooperationamong nations, whatever their constitutionaland social systems,

Noting that the principles of free consent andof good faith and the pacta sunt servanda ruleare universally recognized,

A/firming that disputes concerning treaties, likeother international disputes, should be settledby peaceful means and in conformity with theprinciples ofjustice and international law,

Recalling the determination of the peoples ofthe United Nations to establish conditionsunder which justice and respect for theobligations arising from treaties can bemaintained,

Having in mind the principles of internationallaw embodied in the Charter of the UnitedNations, such as the principles of the equalrights and self-determination of peoples. of thesovereign equality and independence of allStates. f non-interference in the domesticaffai.rs of States, of the prohihitio.n of the threat:or use of force and of un.iversai respect Par, andobservance of. human rights and fundamentalfreedoms for all.

Les Etats Parties a la prdsente Convention,

Considéranr Ic rOle fondamental des traitésdans l’histoire des relations internationales,

I?econnaissant l’importance de plus en plusgrande des traités en tant que source dii droitinternational et en tant que rnoyen dedévelopper la cooperation paciflque entre lesnations, quels que soient leurs regimesconstitutionnels et sociaux.

Constatant que les principes dii libreconsentement et de la honne foi et la règlepacta sunt servanda soul universellementreconnus,

Afllrinant que les différends concernant lestraités doivent, comme les autres différendsinternationaux, Ctre réglCs par des moyenspacifiques et conformément aux principes de Iajustice et dii droit international,

Rappelant Ia resolution des peuples desNations Unies de créer les conditionsnCcessaires au maintien de Ia justice et durespect des obligations nées des traités,

Conscients des principes de droit internationalincorporés dans Ia Charte des Nations Unies,tels que les principes concernant l’égalitC desclroits des peuples et leur droit de disposerd’eux-mdmes. l’égalite souveraine etl indépendance de tons les Etats. Ia noningd.ren.ce hans les affaire.s i:ntérieures desEtats, l’interdiction de Ia menace on deFemplol de Ia fOrce et Ic respect universel eteffectifdes droits de Lhomrne et des libertésfondarnentales pour tous.

35

Believing that the codification and progressivedevelopment of the Jaw of treaties achieved inthe present Convention will promote thepurposes of the United Nations set forth in theCharter, namely, the maintenance ofinternational peace and security, thedevelopment of friendly relations and theachievement of cooperation among nations,

Affirming that the rules of customaryinternational law will continue to governquestions not regulated by the provisions of thepresent Convention,

flave agreed as follows:

Article 26. “Pacta sunt servanda’

Every treaty in force is binding upon theparties to it and must be performed by them infood faith.

Article 27. Internal law and observances oftreaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of itsinternal law as justification for its failure toperform a treaty. This rule is without prejudiceto article 46.

Article 53. Treaties conflicting with aperemptory norm of general international law(‘jus cogens’)

A treaty is void iE at the time of its conclusion.it conflicts with a peremptory norm of generalinternational law For the purposes of thepresent Convention, a peremptory norm ofceneraf international la is a norm acceptedand recoeniied b:v the international common tvof S tates as a whole as a norm from which noderogation is permitted and which can hemodified only by a subsequent norm of generalinternational law having the same character.

Convaincus que la codification et Icdéveloppement progressifdu droit des traitésréalisés dans Ia présente Convention servirontles buts des Nations Unies énoncés dans IaCharte, qui sont de maintenir Ia paix et Iasécurité internationales, de développer entre lesnations des relations amicales et de réaliser Iacooperation iniernationale,

AffIrmant que les règles du droit internationalcoutumier continueront a régir les questionsnon réglées dans les dispositions de Ia présenteConvention,

Sont convenus de cc qui suit:

Article 26. “Pacta sum servanda”

Tout traité en vigueur lie les parties et doit CtreexCcuté par dies de honne foi.

Article 27. Droit interne et respect des traités

line partie ne peut invoquer les dispositions deson droit interne commejustifiant Ia nonexecution d’un traité. Cette règle est sansprejudice de l’article 46.

Article 53. TraitCs en conflit avec une normeimperative du droit international général (‘juscogens”)

Est nut tout traité qui. au moment de saconclusion. est en contlit avec une normeimperative du droit international general. Auxfins de Ia prCsente Convention, one normeimpératic do droit international gCnCral cstone norme acceptec e t reconnuc par Iacommunautd internaticnaie des iflats dans sonensemble en tant que norme C laquelle aucunederogation n’est permise ci qui ne peut Ctremoditiée que par une nouvelle norme du droitinternational gCnéral ayant Ic mCme caractCre.

36

Article 64. Emergence of a new peremptorynorm of general international law (“hiscogens’)

If a new peremptory norm of generalinternational law emerges, any existing treatywhich is in conflict with that norm becomesvoid and terminates.

Article 71. Consequences of the invalidity of atreaty which conflicts with a peremptory normof general international law

I. In the case of a treaty which is void underarticle 53 the parties shall:

(a) eliminate as far as possible theconsequences of any act performed in relianceon any provision which conflicts with theperemptory norm of general international law:and

(b) bring their mutual relations into conformitywith the peremptory norm of generalinternational law

2. In the case of a treaty which becomes voidand terminates under article 64, the terminationof the treaty:

(a) releases the parties from any obligationfurther to perform the treaty;

(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legalsituation of the parties created through theexecution of the treaty prior to its termination,provided that those rights, obligations orsituations max tlereafter he maintained on lv tothe extent that their mantenanee is not in itselfin contlict with the nev peremntorx norm ofgeneral international law.

Article 64. Survenance d’une nouvelle normeimperative du droit international general (juscogens”)

Si une nouvelle norme imperative du droitinternational gCnCral survient. tout traitéexistant qui est en conflit avec cette normedevient nul et prend fin.

Article 71. Consequences de Ia nullité d’untraité en conflit avec une norine imperative dudroit international général

I. Dans Ic cas d’un traité qui est nul en vertu del’article 53, les parties sont ten ues

a) d’éliminer, dans Ia mesure du possible, lesconsequences de tout acte accompli sur Ia based’une disposition qui est en conflit avec Ianorrne imperative du droit internationalgénCral; et

b) de rendre leurs relations mutuellesconformes a Ia norme imperative du droitinternational general.

2. Dans Ic cas d’un traité qui devient nul etprend fin en vertu de l’article 64, Ia fin dutraité

a) libère les parties de l’ohligation de continuerd’exécuter Ic traitC;

b) ne porte atteinte a aucun droit, aucuneobligation, iii aucune situation juridique desparties. crCés par I’exécution du traité avantqu’il ait pris fin; toutetois, ces droits,ohlications on situations iie peuvent Ctremantenus par Ia suite que ians Ia mesure eucur manten nest pas en so en contlit avec Ia

nouvelle norme imperative du droitinternational général.