|
|
|
|
TITLE: Canada Bars Extradition to U.S. for Death Penalty |
AUTHOR: |
PUB: Reuters |
DATE: February 16, 2001 |
|
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's top court, going far beyond past rulings on capital punishment, ruled that two Canadians who allegedly confessed to a brutal triple murder must not be sent to the United States to face the death penalty. Undercover police officers said Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay, arrested in British Columbia in 1995, had bragged about killing off Rafay's parents and sister in Washington state. Burns allegedly bludgeoned them to death with a baseball bat. But the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that it would be unconstitutional to extradite the two men unless Ottawa won assurances that they would not face execution, which has been abolished in Canada. The 9-0 decision effectively overrode a 1991 ruling in another case, which allowed the extradition of two U.S. murder suspects to face possible execution, though capital punishment has generally been banned in Canada in 1976. The present chief justice, Beverley McLachlin, had argued for the court in 1991 that there was "no clear consensus in this country that capital punishment is morally abhorrent and absolutely unacceptable." But in the current case the court said that arguments have since then grown stronger against sending people away to face possible execution. "Canada is now abolitionist for all crimes, even those in the military field," it said, referring to a 1998 law which formalized the practice of not executing soldiers. Canada has not put anyone to death since 1962. "The international trend against the death penalty has become clearer," it added, noting that there were also "hard-headed concerns about wrongful convictions." It referred to Canadian cases -- including Donald Marshall, David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin -- where people had served time for murders they were later found not to have committed. Despite its ruling, the court agreed with the description in 1996 by Canada's then-justice minister, Allan Rock, of the crimes as "brutal and shocking coldblooded murder." "The force was so violent that blood was spattered on all four walls and the ceiling of the (bed)room," the court said. Burns and Rafay, then 18 and now 25, had allegedly said they had carried out the murders to make $400,000 from selling the family home and cashing in the life insurance. Rock agreed at the time that they should be surrendered without seeking assurances from Washington state that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty. Canada is entitled to seek such assurances under its extradition treaty with the United States, but Rock said in 1996 that Canada could not become a safe haven for murderers. In the absence of assurances, Burns and Rafay -- now in jail in British Columbia -- would have faced either capital punishment or life imprisonment with no parole if convicted. "There is no evidence whatsoever that extradition to face life in prison without release or parole provides a lesser deterrent to those seeking a 'safe haven' than the death penalty," the court asserted. But Vic Toews of the opposition Canadian Alliance told Parliament: "The Americans are concerned that Canada is a safe haven for terrorists. Now the Supreme Court has effectively put out the welcome mat for murders." Rock's replacement, Anne McLellan, said she had now instructed her people to seek assurances on the death penalty, and the two men would be sent once those are received. One of Rafay's lawyers, Clayton Ruby, described Rafay's reaction after talking to him by phone. "He cried with relief. He was sobbing," Ruby told a Toronto news conference. The judgement did not base its decision on Canadian citizenship, which suggested that Americans and other foreigners would not be sent away to the death penalty either. It said that in "all but exceptional cases" Canada was constitutionally bound to seek assurances a fugitive would not be put to death. The court said without elaborating that this case did not have exceptional circumstances. Lawyer Ruby said maybe the case of Charles Ng, a U.S. resident returned to California in the 1991 decision, would have qualified as exceptional. Ng was convicted in 1999 of 11 murders. But Ruby also conceded the present case was serious. The court also came close to ruling out any return to capital punishment in Canada, as unlikely as that prospect now might be. The last legislative attempt failed in 1987. "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in the Canadian view of fundamental justice, capital punishment is unjust and it should be stopped," the court said. That referred to a clause in the constitution that everyone has the right to life "except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." This court appeared now to open the way to use that clause to challenge any new death penalty law. Copyright © 2001 The Associated Press. END |