MA8-00121

Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA8-00121 Private Proceeding Huis clos Claimant(s) Demandeur(e)s d'asile XXXXX XXXXX Date(s) of Hearing Date(s) de l'audience March 24, 2010 Place of Hearing Lieu de l'audience Montréal, Quebec Date of Decision Date de la decision June 4, 2010 Panel Tribunal Me Michelle Langelier Claimant's Counsel Conseil du demandeur d'asile Me Alain Vallieres Tribunal Officer Agent du tribunal Myra Shuster Designated Representative Représentant désigné N/A Minister's Counsel Conseil du ministre Me Anne-Renée Touchette [1] XXXXX XXXXX, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Minister of Public Safety (the Minister) is intervening in this claim and is requesting that the claimant be excluded from the benefit of sections 96 and 97, pursuant to section 98 of the IRPA, under articles 1F(a) and (c)1 of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Convention). SUMMARY OF ALLEGED FACTS [2] The claimant fears for his life because of his political activities with the Mouvement pour la Libération du Congo (MLC) [movement for the liberation of Congo]. His problems began at the end of 2006 and culminated in his detention in 2007. He was released under pressure from the XXXXX XXXXX - and managed to flee the DRC and go to the United States, where he was to attend a meeting of the XXXXX XXXXX. He entered Canada on January 2, 2008, and claimed refugee protection that day. ANALYSIS [3] The claimant's identity was established to the panel's satisfaction through the identity documents submitted on the record.2 [4] The Minister is requesting the claimant's exclusion because, in his opinion, there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed or was complicit in crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity, or that he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. According to section 98 of the IRPA, a person referred to in article 1F of the Convention is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection." [5] It was agreed at the hearing that I will render a decision on the claimant's exclusion and that if I do not exclude him, I will reconvene the parties to hear his claim. [6] Section 98 of the IRPA states that a person referred to in articles 1F(a) or (c) of the Convention is not a refugee; that is, any person: with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: (a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; ... (c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. is not a refugee. The burden of proof imposed in such a case rests on the Minister and, according to the case law, is lower than the balance of probabilities.3 That said, given the serious consequences of an exclusion on a claim for protection, the exclusion clauses must be interpreted restrictively. [7] I must first determine whether the MLC committed, during the time the claimant was a member (I will return to this question), the acts mentioned in article 1F. I will now refer to some non-exhaustive excerpts from the evidence submitted by the Minister. Documentary evidence [8] During the hearing, the Minister's representative cited a large number of excerpts from the documentary evidence issued by international human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, the United Nations Economic and Social Council, the United Nations Security Council, Reporters Sans Frontières [reporters without borders], and the United States Country Reports on Human Rights. In my opinion, these are reliable sources. [9] The MLC is a political and military movement led by Jean-Pierre Bemba and founded in June 1999 with the acknowledged goal of toppling the dictatorial government through political means and armed battle.4 [10] What acts were committed by the MLC from the time of its formation to the end of 2003, when this movement became a true political party? The documentary evidence is voluminous and overwhelming. MLC members, in both the DRC and the Central African Republic, where they also held sway, have engaged in murder;5 rape as a tool of warfare6 against women, girls, little girls7 and nuns;8 arrests and arbitrary detentions; disappearances and arbitrary killings of civilians;9 torture;10 fires; pillaging; and massacres.11 According to the evidence, all of these horrors were committed on a large scale, and thousands and thousands of innocent victims were targeted. [11] The evidence also reports incidences of cannibalism12 by soldiers of the Armée de Libération du Congo (ALC) [army for the liberation of Congo], the armed branch of the MLC, with the knowledge of MLC leaders. The evidence further reports that the ALC recruited thousands of child soldiers13 and that in certain areas, they constituted up to 40% of the armed forces. These children were subjected to unimaginable horrors, forced to fight and often kill their own families, forced to engage in cannibalism, raped, and used as sex slaves.14 It is important to point out that the ALC is an integral part of the MLC, which is clearly stated in the MLC's statutes. [12] In light of this evidence, I am of the opinion that the MLC was responsible for serious and systematic human rights violations during the time that it was a political and military movement, that is, from 1999 to late 2003. Acts committed [13] I must now determine whether the acts that I just mentioned are crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. [14] The recent case law provided a clear explanation of the notion of crime against humanity. I will therefore begin by analyzing the evidence in light of this notion. In Hajialikhani, Reed J. stated as follows: The definition of "crimes against humanity" set out in the London Agreement reads: Article 6 ... Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds ...15 [15] Other cases adopt a similar definition. Sivakumar adds an important dimension: Crimes against humanity must generally be committed in a widespread, systematic fashion;16 [16] Finally, Mugesera17 clearly states the conditions under which a criminal act may be considered a crime against humanity: As we shall see, based on the provisions of the Criminal Code and the principles of international law, a criminal act rises to the level of a crime against humanity when four elements are made out: An enumerated proscribed act was committed (this involves showing that the accused committed the criminal act and had the requisite guilty state of mind for the underlying act); The act was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack; The attack was directed against any civilian population or any identifiable group of persons; and The person committing the proscribed act knew of the attack and knew or took the risk that his or her act comprised a part of that attack. [17] I am of the opinion that the evidence mentioned previously clearly demonstrates that the MLC, from 2000 to 2003, systematically committed a large number of barbaric and inhumane acts and serious acts of persecution and that this persecution was widespread and systematic and directed against the civilian population and the targeted groups. [18] I conclude that the MLC committed crimes against humanity during the above-mentioned period. In light of this conclusion, I do not need to visit the other notions set out in article 1F of the Convention. [19] I will now analyze whether, in that context, there are serious reasons for considering that the claimant was complicit in crimes against humanity, either as an actor or as an accomplice, given that the evidence does not support a conclusion that the claimant himself committed the acts mentioned in the evidence. [20] Before analyzing whether the claimant was complicit, it is important to determine when he was a member of the MLC. This fact is one of the key issues in this case. Claimant's membership in the MLC [21] During his testimony at the hearing, the claimant denied that he was member of the MLC during the period that this movement committed all of the crimes mentioned. At the beginning of his testimony at the hearing, he alleged that he only joined the MLC in 2004. He testified that before then, in 2002, he was briefly a member of a XXXXX committee whose goal was to XXXXX XXXXX. He explained that as an XXXXX XXXXX, he wanted to ensure that he enjoyed certain benefits as soon as the MLC arrived, such as obtaining XXXXX XXXXX. He also testified that after a few months, this XXXXX XXXXX committee XXXXX. The claimant alleged that he was not involved in any political activities until XXXXX 2004, when he officially joined the MLC. [22] These allegations are directly contrary to the fact that in the form that he completed when he initially claimed refugee protection,18 he indicated that he became a member of the MLC's XXXXX XXXXX 2000; he did not indicate that he had ceased being a member. Confronted with these major contradictions, the claimant first corrected his testimony and stated that he did indeed join the XXXXX committee in 2000, not in 2002. As for the contradiction between a [translation] "XXXXX committee" and a [translation] "XXXXX," the claimant explained that these terms refer to the same organization. [23] Finally, as for why he did not indicate in the form completed at the port of entry that he had ceased being a member of the "XXXXX committee XXXXX" in 2000 and that he did not join the MLC itself until 2004, but rather indicated that he became a member of the MLC in 2000 without interruption, the claimant testified that it is in his nature to explain everything and that there was not enough space in the form to write down every detail. [24] The evidence on the record contains another key statement from the claimant. He was summoned for an expedited interview on XXXXX, 2009. During the interview, which was recorded,19 the tribunal officer explained to the claimant that his membership in the MLC could be problematic, given the human rights violations that this movement has committed. After this clearly worded warning, the claimant stated that he was indeed a member of the MLC. Asked since when, he stated that he has been [translation] "a contributing member since 2000." On this statement, the expedited interview ended. [25] At the hearing, the claimant was confronted with the statements he made at the expedited interview. He changed his account and indicated that he had meant to say XXXXX committee when he said MLC. He was going to explain himself at the end of the interview, but found himself in the situation of being unable to explain. [26] When asked at the hearing for his definition of "contributing member," the expression that he used at the expedited interview, the claimant testified that he was talking about the XXXXX committee, because the actions of that committee commanded success. He added, [translation] "It was clear that when the MLC came, we would become members of the MLC." [27] In my opinion, the claimant tried at the hearing to change testimony that he now realizes is highly incriminating, given the Minister's intervention submitted in March 2009, and that at the port of entry in January 2008 and at his expedited interview in January 2009, he spontaneously told the truth about his membership in the MLC. In the words of Martineau J. in Mohacsi:20 Fourth, a claimant's first story is usually the most genuine and, therefore, the one to be most believed. [28] Even more relevant is the statement of Martineau, J. in Nava Chavez:21 There is no reason here to doubt the truth and the accuracy of the statements made by the principal applicant to the immigration officer. Moreover, I note that the principal applicant is an educated man and a lawyer. It is therefore reasonable to expect him to be able to give the immigration officer and the Board a clear explanation of his reasons for leaving Mexico. Finally, this is not a case in which the evidence on record shows that real prejudice was caused to the claimant for refugee protection because of flagrant mistakes in interpretation made by an interpreter at the hearing or at the initial interview with the immigration officer. [29] In this case, the claimant is also a XXXXX and speaks excellent French; he reasonably should know the importance of the statements that he was making to the Canadian immigration authorities, whom he was asking to protect him. Consequently, I believe that the claimant has been a member of the MLC since 2000 and that he did not cease being a member until he left the DRC. Claimant's complicity [30] The consistent case law on this matter indicates that complicity in crimes against humanity implies a shared common purpose and personal and knowing participation in the acts of which the organization is guilty. More specifically, an individual who is part of such an organization, who does not take measures to prevent the acts committed by the organization if it is possible to do so, and who does not dissociate himself or herself from the organization at the first possible opportunity, but who on the contrary actively supports the organization, demonstrates a shared common purpose. Mens rea is therefore a critical element when assessing complicity. [31] I cannot express myself better than Mosley J., when he addressed complicity in the context of exclusion: The law makes it clear that in order to be complicit in the commission of an international offence an individual's participation must be personal and knowing. Complicity in such an offence rests on a shared common purpose: Gutierrez, above at para. 22, citing Penate, above at para. 4 This has been described as the mens rea requirement of the exclusion clause: Cardenas v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 139 at para. 12 (T.D.) (QL) [Cardenas]. In the context of assessing complicity by way of involvement with an organization, the first step is to look at the purpose of the organization in question. Where the "main objective of the organization is achieved by crimes against humanity or is directed towards a limited and brutal purpose, membership is generally sufficient to establish complicity": Pushpanathan v. Canada, at para. 41. Unless the organization at issue is found to have a limited, brutal purpose however, mere membership in a group responsible for international crimes is not enough: Sivakumar, above at para. 13. 22 [32] Therefore, I must determine whether the MLC, at the time the claimant was a member, that is, starting in 2000, can be described as an organization directed toward a limited and brutal purpose. The case law indicates that an organization whose very existence "is premised on achieving political or social ends by any means deemed necessary"23 is open to a presumption that mere membership in that organization implies complicity, without necessarily linking the claimant's complicity to a particular crime committed by the organization. The Federal Court in Ramirez,24 a key case in this matter, states as follows: It seems apparent, however, that where an organization is principally directed to a limited, brutal purpose, such as a secret police activity, mere membership may by necessity involve personal and knowing participation in persecutorial acts. [33] The Federal Court was called upon in Pushpanathan25 to rule on what determines that an organization that otherwise pursues political objectives is directed toward limited and brutal purposes. Blais J. stated as follows: ...where there is no evidence that political objectives can be separated from militaristic activities, an organization could still be found to have a limited, brutal purpose. ... If the main objective of the organization is achieved by crimes against humanity or is directed towards a limited and brutal purpose, membership is generally sufficient to establish complicity. [34] My analysis of the documentary evidence entered on this record leads me to conclude that, from 2000 to the end of 2003, the years during which the claimant was a member, the MLC's main objective was to topple Kabila's dictatorship and assume power; this objective is even indicated in the MLC's statutes, as I mentioned previously. In addition, although the claimant was a member of the movement's political branch and not its armed branch, being a member of the "legal college", it is clear that the MLC hoped to achieve its objectives primarily through its armed branch, which was not dissociated from it; the MLC's statutes once again are clear on this, and the documentary evidence confirms this. [35] I am of the opinion that the evidence establishes that the MLC used all means deemed necessary to achieve its objectives, means that I mentioned earlier: arbitrary arrest, murder, rape, summary execution, cannibalism, massacre, systematic torture, pillaging, fires and the use of child soldiers. [36] The evidence clearly shows that the MLC, in the years the claimant was a member, was an organization directed to a limited and brutal purpose. In this case, it is presumed that the claimant has the mental capacity required, the mens rea necessary for a conclusion of complicity.26 The claimant is therefore presumed to be complicit in the crimes against humanity committed by the MLC from 2000 to the end of 2003. [37] This presumption is rebuttable.27 To determine whether the claimant could reverse it, I considered the criteria set out in Ryivuze28 to determine complicity: Determining whether or not Mr. Ryivuze was complicit in the crimes committed by the government of Burundi is essentially a question of fact which requires an assessment of his personal situation. (Sivakumar, supra, at paragraph 2) On this point, the Federal Court has listed six factors which must be considered to determine whether or not an individual is complicit in crimes against humanity: (1) the nature of the organization; (2) the method of recruitment; (3) position/rank in the organization; (4) knowledge of the organization's atrocities; (5) the length of time in the organization; and (6) the opportunity to leave the organization. Nature of the organization [38] I have already determined that the nature of the MLC is that of an organization directed to a limited and brutal purpose. Method of recruitment [39] It is clear that the claimant joined the MLC voluntarily. In fact, he testified that he wanted to better position himself on the political ladder and become a XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. He also testified, [translation] "I espoused their political convictions; I was hoping for a new political era." Position in the organization [40] The claimant held a XXXXX, or at the very least XXXXX, as a member of the XXXXX. He was not a subordinate who did not know the direction his organization was taking. Knowledge of atrocities [41] The claimant's testimony regarding his knowledge of the atrocities committed by the MLC was not credible. [42] He initially testified that he did not know any details concerning the armed branch of the MLC. However, the documentary evidence indicates that the violations committed by the ALC were well-known and highly publicized.29 [43] Confronted with the fact that the ceasefire to which the MLC committed in February 2001 was not respected,30 the claimant answered, [translation] "there were only a few pockets of resistance left. Kabila's son neutralized the situation. All weapons were put down." When confronted with the evidence cited previously, which mentions that, on the contrary, the MLC continued to fight at the end of 2001 in the country's eastern areas,31 the claimant answered, [translation] "it was no longer a war with the MLC. The conflict was between the forces that were there." [44] After several questions and confrontations, the claimant finally testified that between 2000 and 2004, he [translation] "did indeed have information on this," speaking about the violations committed by the MLC. Concerning the massacres in North-Kivu,32 the claimant testified that he had been aware of them, [translation] "but did not really have any details. We heard through media reports that there was a war. Stray bullets are normal from time to time, but I do not know that civilians were targeted." When asked whether he had heard of the systematic rape of women as a tool of warfare and the murder of civilians, he answered that he had not. [45] The claimant was asked whether the government talked about the abuses committed by the MLC at that time, and he testified, [translation] "it was difficult to treat these reports as the truth. I put them down to political brainwashing." He did not try to verify whether the reports were true because, according to his testimony, he was very busy with his work at the XXXXX XXXXX. [46] When asked about the fires and massacres of entire villages in April 2001, which were widely reported in the media,33 the claimant testified, [translation] "I heard about the clash between the MLC and the mayi-mayi; but I know nothing about this exact incident. I believe there were some massacres." Later in his testimony, the claimant tried to minimize the situation. He stated, [translation] "That depends on the meaning you give to the word massacre. When I hear that someone died, am I going to try to find out if it was a massacre?" [47] About operation "Effacez le tableau" [wipe the slate], which was widely reported in the documentary evidence,34 the claimant knew only that [translation] "the MLC killed a group of pygmies and attacked the pygmies." However, he added, [translation] "At first I believed it, but then I doubted this information. It is beyond human understanding that there was cannibalism in the Congo." When confronted with the fact that even Bemba, the leader of the MLC, admitted that his movement engaged in cannibalism,35 the claimant answered, [translation] "It might have happened, but the population doubts it." I do not accept these attempts at justification. First, the claimant's attempts to minimize the abuses committed by the MLC yet at the same time claim that he was not a member are contradictory. In addition, it is implausible that the claimant was not aware of the gravity and the systematic and systemic nature of the crimes committed by the MLC. In the words of Teitelbaum J. of the Federal Court in Shakarabi:36 If, as in the present case, an individual lives and works in a country where persons around him are disappearing and where one hears of persons arrested and tortured, it appears to me to be totally unbelievable that one would not have knowledge of what is taking place. [48] Finally, concerning the mass recruitment of child soldiers, the claimant testified that it is "possible," but according to him, it happened in 1998-1999 [translation] "by soldiers of the former Mobutu regime, to supplement its forces." When confronted with the fact that this practice continued in 2002, the claimant alleged that he was not aware of it. [49] At a given point during the hearing, the claimant stopped his denials and admitted that the MLC was an armed movement before 2004 and that he knew it, and that he knew that even the political branch supported the armed conflict, in accordance with the movement's statutes. Length of time in the organization [50] I have already explained why I do not believe the claimant when he alleges that he did not join the MLC until 2004. I believe that he was an active member of the MLC during the entire period that the movement was committing the abuses. Opportunity to leave the organization [51] I conclude that the claimant voluntarily remained with an organization that he knew was guilty of serious human rights violations. [52] The claimant's testimony when confronted with the atrocities committed by the MLC was nonchalant and completely lacking in empathy for the thousands of victims. He spoke of this period in his country's history as a period of isolated incidents, [translation] "pockets of resistance," the normal consequences of war. In my opinion, however, the massacres of civilians; the systematic rape of women, girls and young girls; and the recruitment of child soldiers are not the collateral damage of a war. I agree with the Minister that the claimant's speech is that of an active member of the MLC who knew what was going on but who, out of political ambition, chose the MLC, the only party that, in his opinion, could have assumed power from Kabila. He testified that his goal was to become a XXXXX XXXXX. [53] Consequently, I am of the opinion that the claimant did not rebut the presumption that he was complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the MLC between 2000 and 2004. CONCLUSION [54] For the above-mentioned reasons, I determine that the claimant is described in article 1F(a) of the Convention, in that there are serious reasons to believe that he was complicit in crimes against humanity. [55] Therefore, I determine, pursuant to section 98 of the IRPA, that the claimant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection." Michelle Langelier Me Michelle Langelier June 4, 2010 Date IRB translation Original language: French REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION - MALE - EXCLUSION - ARTICLE 1F(a) AND (c) - CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY - COMPLICITY - CONTRADICTIONS - NEGATIVE - DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO 1 These articles of the Convention can be found in Schedule 1 of the IRPA. 2 See the claimant's passport, submitted as Exhibit A-2 in a bundle. 3 See Ramirez v. Canada, [1992] 2 F.C. 306, page 312; Penate v. Canada, [1994] 2 F.C. 79, at paragraph 4; Moreno v. Canada [1994] 1 F.C. 298 C.A., pages 310-311. 4 See Exhibit M-15: Statuts du MLC [statutes of the MLC], articles 3, 7, 28. 5 See Exhibit M-4: "Amnesty International Annual Report 2002 on the DRC" covering events from 2001, pages 2 to 4; M-7: Amnesty International, "DRC: On the precipice: The Deepening Human Rights and Humanitarian Crisis in Ituri," page 15, referring to the ethnic cleansing operation "Effacez le tableau" (see also pages 9, 17 to 19); M-13: Response to Information Request RDC43557.FE: "Democratic Republic of Congo: Crimes, including the serious human rights violations, rapes and killings, that were reportedly committed by members of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (Mouvement de libération du Congo, MLC)," pages 1 and 2. 6 See Exhibit M-40: United Nations Security Council, "À la suite des violations des droits de l'homme perpétrées dans la région de l'Ituri, le Conseil réfléchit aux moyens de mettre fin à la culture de l'impunité au Congo-Kinshasa" [following human rights abuses in the Ituri region, the Council reflects on ways to end the culture of impunity in Congo-Kinshasa], 2003, page 4. 7 See Exhibit M-3: "Amnesty International Annual Report 2003 on the Central African Republic, covering events from 2002," page 2; M-8: Amnesty International, "République Centrafricaine, 2004, cinq mois de guerre contre les femmes" [Central African Republic, 2004, five months of war against women], pages 1 to 5, 8 to 17]; M-9: Amnesty International, "République Centrafricaine, 2004, des centaines de femmes violées et abandonnées" [Central African Republic, 2004, hundreds of women raped and abandoned]; M-17: "Fédération International des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme, 2002," [international federation for human rights, 2002], page 21. 8 See Exhibit M-49: "US Country Reports on Human Rights for 2001, Central African Republic," page 5. 9 See Exhibit M-26: Human Rights Watch, "Chaos dans l'Est du Congo: nécessité d'une action immédiate des Nations Unies" [chaos in eastern Congo: need for immediation action from the United Nations], 2002, page 3; M-38: "Rapport du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies" [report of the United Nations Security Council], 2002, pages 4 to 6, 14 and 15. 10 See Exhibit M-21: Human Rights Internet, "For the record 1999: The UN Human Rights System - Congo (Republic Democratic of) - General Assembly - Report of the Special Rapporteur 1999," page 3. 11 See Exhibit M-20: "Headline Congo-Kinshasa - Paper views rebel leader Bemba's refusal to let UN troops land," pages 1 and 2. 12 See Exhibit M-18: GRIOO.Com, "L'ONU dénonce les exactions commises par les rebelles au Congo-Kinshasa" [UN denounces the abuses committed by rebels in Congo-Kinshasa], 2003, pages 1 and 2; M-28: Human Rights Watch, "Covered in Blood: Ethnically Targeted Violence in Northern DRC," 2003, pages 35 to 37, 41 to 44. 13 See Exhibit M-7, cited previously, page 23; M-12: "Le bilan UNICEF - Enfants et Guerre, Guerres africaines - Les enfants soldats [UNICEF update - children and war, African wars - child soldiers], 2006, page 2; M-13 cited previously; M-23: Human Rights Internet, "Bilan des droits de la personne 2002: Le système des Nations Unies - République démocratique du Congo - Conseil de Sécurité - rapports du Secrétaire Général 2002 [human rights update 2002: the United Nations system - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Security Council - reports of the Secretary General 2002], page 4; M-28: cited previously, page 45; M-38: United Nations Security Council, S/2002/169, 2002, page 14; M-39: United Nations Security Council, S/2002/1180, 2002, page 9. 14 See Exhibit M-5: "Amnesty International Annual Report 2004 on the DRC" covering events from 2003, page 3, last paragraph; see also page 4 on systematic rapes, torture and arbitrary detentions. 15 Canada v. Hajialikhani, [1999] 1 F.C. 181. 16 Sivakumar v. Canada, [1994] 1 F.C. 433, at paragraph 14. 17 Mugesera v. Canada, [2005] S.C.J. No 39, at paragraph 119. 18 See Exhibit A-2 in a bundle, form IMM-5474 Schedule 1, question 5. 19 The recording of the interview on XXXXX, 2009, was submitted as Exhibit A-3. 20 Mohacsi v. Canada, 2003 F.C.T.D., April 11, 2003, at paragraph 21; this same sentence is found in Lubana v. Canada, 2003 F.C.T. 116, at paragraph 13. 21 Nava Chavez v. Canada, 2007 F.C. 10, at paragraph 15. 22 Thomas v. Canada, 2007 F.C. 838, at paragraphs 22 and 23. 23 Moreno v. Canada, [1994] 1 F.C. 298, at paragraph 45. 24 Ramirez v. Canada, [1992] 2 F.C. 306, page 317. 25 Pushpanathan v. Canada, 2002 F.C.T.D. 867, at paragraphs 40 and 41. 26 Pineda Collins v. Canada, 2005 F.C. 732, at paragraph 23. 27 Yogo v. Canada, 2001 F.C.T.D., at paragraph 15; Saridag v. Canada, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1516, at paragraph 10. 28 Ryivuze v. Canada, 2007 F.C. 134, at paragraph 38. 29 See Exhibit M-27: Human Rights Watch, "World Report 2003 - DRC, page 3; M-36: Le Monde, "Actes de cannibalisme au Congo ou la terreur des Effacez" [acts of cannibalism in the Congo or the terror of the "wipers"], 2003, pages 1 to 3; M-44: Le Nouvel Observateur, "RDC: L'ONU redécouvre l'horreur du conflit congolais" [DRC: the UN rediscovers the horror of the conflict], 2003, pages 1 and 2; M-45: Observatoire de l'Afrique centrale, "RDC - De l'instrumentalisation du pygmée" [DRC - exploiting the pygmy], 2003, pages 1 to 5. 30 See Exhibit M-37: United Nations Economic and Social Council - Human Rights Commission, E/CN.4/2001/40, 2001, page 14, at paragraph 27. 31 See Exhibit M-38 cited previously, pages 4 to 6. 32 See Exhibit M-4: "Amnesty International Annual Report on DRC 2002 for 2001," page 4. 33 See Exhibit M-20, mentioned previously, pages 1 and 2. 34 See Exhibits M-7, M-18, M-28, M-35, M-36, M-40, M-44, M-45, etc., mentioned previously. 35 See Exhibit M-32: InterPress Service News Agency, "Bemba reconnaît les actes de cannibalisme perpétrés par ses troupes dans l'Ituri" [Bemba admits the acts of cannibalism committed his troops in Ituri], 2003. 36 Shakarabi v. Canada, IMM-1371-97, at paragraph 25. --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA8-00121 15