CANADA

Could you briefly tell us about the case that Hands Off Cain has followed for the past two years and its most important developments.
A: This is a case that began in 1994 when the homicide occurred, in other words there were three people who were killed in Seattle. A year later, my client, Atif Rafay, and a co-accused, Sebastian Burns, were arrested. The American government sought their extradition to Washington State, particularly Seattle, for them to stand trial on three charges of aggravated murder. They were committed to extradition, the issue that the courts have dealt with the last four years, really has involved the important problem of whether Canada should surrender anyone to the United States when it a realistic possibility that the death penalty would be imposed. The Supreme Court of Canada came to grips with this issue just yesterday, they had before them many parties in addition to the lawyers for the two men. One of them was the Italian Senate, Amnesty International was also involved as well as other organisations, which helped enrich the debate, and the understanding we have of the death penalty. The Courts decision was a resounding rejection of the death penalty. They held a unanimous decision that in the absence of very exceptional circumstances only assurances (of non application of capital punishment) would permit surrender if the death penalty were going to be meaningful possibility. I’m just going to read a quote as I think it is very powerful, what the court said about the death penalty was: “It is final, irreversible, its imposition had been described as arbitrary, its deterrent value has been doubted, its imposition unnecessarily causes psychological and physical suffering, it has been rejected by the Canadian parliament for offences committed within Canada”. Then they looked extensively at the evolution of opinion in Europe and the rejection of the death penalty within the continent and other Commonwealth countries. We are very proud of the decision it makes our policies around extradition the same as our domestic policies because we do not have the death penalty in Canada and we hope very much it contributes to the discussion on a worldwide basis.
Q: how did both Canadian politicians and Canadian public opinion receive this decision?
A: Well I guess public opinion is just developing (laughs). I think there are two threats, in my reading of the newspapers this morning at least two of our (Canadian) papers, one a national one, thoroughly approved of the decision, saying it was a good decision by the court. I think there are some conservative elements that are disappointed. There is still a political discussion in this country about the death penalty, but I’m quite confident that this (the Supreme Court ruling) will end it. Let not talk about the politicians for a minute but of the people. We in Canada have had in the last decade more than three or four very famous cases where we had convicted people of very serious murders, and have now known or realised that they were in fact innocent. So there is a real appreciation from the community, both from the prosecutors perspective as from the judiciary that we can make mistakes, and that these mistakes can never be remedied if the death penalty were even part of the equation.
Q: What effect will this decision have on the United States and its relationship with your country?
A: I’m not sure there will be a significant effect in respect to the relationship between Canada and the United States that is negative. I say that because it is apparent that when we negotiated our treaty with the United States that deals with extradition, the treaty itself contemplated that assurances could be asked for. I think that the Americans are now educated in part because of what has happened in Europe, which has refused to surrender anyone without assurances and Mexico has refused to surrender without assurances. I don’t think it will affect the relationship between the two nations, but what it does do is increase enormously the isolation the United States must feel when it looks at its own conduct with respect to the death penalty. That is issue is important in the United States, it is increasingly one that is divisive, there are even a number of very conservative Governors who have supported Bush, like the Governor of Illinois, who has now declared a moratorium on the death penalty because in the last decade he has had to keep releasing people from death row who were in fact innocent. So I expect that this will feed the debate, and hopefully show that the Americans need to re-consider a relatively barbaric policy.
Q: We often talked by phone to Glen Sebastian Burns (one of the accused), he contacted us and asked us to intervene. Hans Off Cain had organised a delegation of Senators who went to Canada to attend two Canadian Supreme Court hearings. How did Burns and Atif Rafay receive the Court’s decision and how are they now?
A: I didn’t speak to Mr. Burns but I spent a long time on the phone with my client. He was enormously relieved. It made a very interesting comment because I had really forgotten how much of a spectacle death penalty trials are in the United States, he said to me: “This will help me have a fair trial.” His insight into the fact that people make and break their reputations in the United States by winning a death penalty case I thought was very powerful, and I think he’s right, he now stands a chance to have a fair trial on the true issues. So he was a very relieved young man. I would also like say this, I think the presence of the Italian Senate and the argument they put forward was a significant contribution to the discussion before the court. Thank you very much, bye.