Extradition et non-refoulement : la justice fondamentale en péril? Analyse du cas Németh c. Canada (Justice)
In Németh v. Canada (Justice) (2010), the Supreme Court concludes that it is possible for the Minister of Justice to surrender a refugee facing extradition, unless it is unjust or oppressive or the discrimination clause can be applied. Cromwell J. established it isn't necessary to revoke the refugee status prior to the extradition; the Minister only has to demonstrate that the change of circumstances in the refugee's country may lead to the cessation of refugee protection. This implies that the Minister must come forward with evidence of changed circumstances and be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the refugee no longer needs protection in Canada. Unfortunately, the extradition procedures do not properly ensure the substantive fundamental justice and protections sought by refugees. There is no discussion on a possibility to properly respond to the Minister's evidence. However, there must be an opportunity for them to disprove the evidence, especially because it is a subjective matter which challenges the refugees' credibility. Therefore, it is the Minister's responsibility to ensure there is a hearing to comply with fundamental justice. Nevertheless, the Court didn’t go on to prescribe such an obligation to the Minister. In this research, we will then ask ourselves which procedural safeguards should be given by the Minister of Justice to refugees facing extradition.
Extradition Procedure Refugees Principles of Fundamental Justice Evidence Administrative Law International Law Constitutional Law