Australia’s current approach to investigating and prosecuting allegations of serious international crimes “is not working”, the Greens defence and justice spokesperson, David Shoebridge, has said.
Legal experts and former prosecutors have said Australia needs a specialist investigations unit to look into allegations of international crimes such as genocide, or it risks becoming a “safe haven”.
Reports from the Guardian and Four Corners on Monday that the Rwandan government has issued indictments for two men in Australia it accuses of participating in the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 have reanimated debate about Australia’s commitment to investigating and prosecuting international crimes such as genocide.
Shoebridge stressed that Australia should be proud of its history as a multicultural country that welcomed people from all over the world.
But the senator held that “we need to have the systems in place to investigate and prosecute” individuals accused of involvement in alleged international crimes. “We also need to work with other countries to ensure people can’t escape prosecution,” he said.
“Australia should be extremely proud that so many people from around the world come here to build their lives, in some cases fleeing countries where they face violence and persecution.
“We owe every survivor of oppression, torture or genocide an obligation to make our society safe for them and to have systems in place that hold any offenders to account. This, you hope, is a bare minimum we can agree on regardless of politics.”
A spokesperson for the attorney general said the government could not comment on specific cases, but that “the Australian government is committed to tackling serious international crimes and takes allegations of genocide very seriously”.
In 2007, the Labor party’s national policy platform said it recognised the Australian government’s key role in developing the convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide and other international treaties, but said “there are major gaps in Australia’s domestic laws that allow such accused criminals to enter and live here without fear of prosecution”.
“Labor is committed to meeting Australia’s international human rights obligations by closing these loopholes and Labor will review investigatory resources to ensure that any [alleged] perpetrators found in Australia can be brought to justice.”
The commitment has since been dropped from the policy platform.
Legal experts and former prosecutors have argued that Australia – unlike other comparable countries such as the UK, US and European countries – does not have a dedicated unit that specialises in investigating international crimes.
Rawan Arraf, the executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, has said that a lack of a dedicated investigative body in Australia meant it was failing its international obligations.
“Where a generalist unit within the AFP [Australian federal police] has been involved in international crimes investigations, it has proven ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of these investigations and lacks the expertise required,” she said.
A spokesperson for the AFP rejected suggestions it lacked expertise and resources to adequately investigate alleged international crimes.
“The AFP works closely with foreign law enforcement agencies, international bodies and mechanisms” who prosecute alleged international crimes to ensure alleged perpetrators “with a connection to Australia are held to account”, the spokesperson said.
The Guardian/Four Corners investigation revealed Rwanda has issued indictments for two men it believes are in Australia and whom it accuses of participating in the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994.
Rwanda has requested the men’s arrest and extradition to the country to face fresh trials, or for Australia to prosecute the men domestically.
One of the men, who lives in Brisbane, has said allegations against him are “false” and “smears”; the family of the second man says he is innocent although they insist he is not in the country.
The Guardian/Four Corners investigation does not suggest the two men are guilty, only that serious allegations deserve further investigation by appropriate authorities.
The cases, however, could prove legally complex. Australia waited decades after ratifying the genocide convention to make genocide a crime under domestic law, not adopting legislation until 2002. The laws, when passed, were not retrospective, so a charge of genocide predating that time could not be prosecuted under the criminal code without legislative change.
Australia does not have an extradition treaty with Rwanda and has never extradited anybody there.
While there are multilateral treaties under which Australia could extradite a person to Rwanda, Australia’s courts, or the government, might be reluctant to return someone to a country with a questionable human rights record and, as some observers argue, a compromised criminal justice system.
According to Human Rights Watch, the Rwandan government manipulates elections by arresting or assassinating critics and obstructing opposition parties, and polls are marred by allegations of voter intimidation and electoral fraud.
Some Rwandan community members in Australia have said the indictments against the two men here are politically motivated or, at least, have been raised by the Rwandan government as a way to silence dissent.
