TA1-20210

TA1-20210

The Minister established serious reasons to consider the principal claimant complicit in crimes against humanity because credible country and documentary evidence showed the Colombian National Police committed widespread and systematic atrocities during his service, and the claimant, with knowledge of those abuses, repeatedly handed detainees to interrogators, failed to intervene or disengage despite opportunities to do so and held supervisory responsibilities; accordingly he is excluded under Article 1F(a). Family members, by contrast, were found to have a well-founded fear and were accepted as Convention refugees.

Citation
TA1-20210
Parties
Claimant Principal: Principal claimant (name redacted); Claimant Family Member: Female claimant (ex-wife) (name redacted); Claimant Child: Child claimant 1 (name redacted); Claimant Child: Child claimant 2 (name redacted); Claimant Child: Child claimant 3 (name redacted); Claimant Child: Child claimant 4 (name redacted); Refugee Protection Officer / Designated Representative: Refugee Protection Officer / Designated Representative (name redacted); Respondent Minister's Counsel: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim With Exclusion Determination Under Article 1 F(a) of the 1951 Convention (irpa) / Decision Following Hearing by the Refugee Protection Division (exclusion and Inclusion Determinations)
Outcome
Principal claimant excluded from the Convention refugee definition and from being a person in need of protection under Article 1F(a); five other claimants (spouse and four children) accepted as Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Exclusion Article 1 F(a), Crimes Against Humanity, Complicity and Accomplice Liability, Persecution Political Opinion, Particular Social Group, State Protection, Credibility, Delay in Flight
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Criminal Law Human Rights Law Exclusion Article 1 F(a) Crimes Against Humanity Complicity and Accomplice Liability Persecution Political Opinion +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal claimant (name redacted)

Claimant Principal

Female claimant (ex-wife) (name redacted)

Claimant Family Member

Child claimant 1 (name redacted)

Claimant Child

Child claimant 2 (name redacted)

Claimant Child

Child claimant 3 (name redacted)

Claimant Child

Child claimant 4 (name redacted)

Claimant Child

Refugee Protection Officer / Designated Representative (name redacted)

Refugee Protection Officer / Designated Representative

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim With Exclusion Determination Under Article 1 F(a) of the 1951 Convention (irpa) / Decision Following Hearing by the Refugee Protection Division (exclusion and Inclusion Determinations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Colombian National Police committed crimes against humanity on a widespread or systematic basis during the claimant's period of service
  2. 2 Whether there are serious reasons for considering the principal claimant complicit in those crimes (accomplice liability)
  3. 3 Whether the principal claimant personally committed persecutorial acts

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister established serious reasons to consider the principal claimant complicit in crimes against humanity because credible country and documentary evidence showed the Colombian National Police committed widespread and systematic atrocities during his service, and the claimant, with knowledge of those abuses, repeatedly handed detainees to interrogators, failed to intervene or disengage despite opportunities to do so and held supervisory responsibilities; accordingly he is excluded under Article 1F(a). Family members, by contrast, were found to have a well-founded fear and were accepted as Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Principal claimant excluded from the Convention refugee definition and from being a person in need of protection under Article 1F(a); five other claimants (spouse and four children) accepted as Convention refugees

Orders

  • Declare principal claimant excluded pursuant to Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Convention and sections 96 and 97 of IRPA
  • Accept refugee claims of the female claimant and the four child claimants and grant Convention refugee status