940 NEWS

Ruling allowing deportation to torture needs revisiting, says former justice at 17:32 on June 13, 2005, EST.

TORONTO (CP) - A Supreme Court of Canada ruling allowing the deportation of terrorist suspects to face torture in \"exceptional circumstances\" will likely have to be revisited, says a justice who was party to the landmark decision.

In an interview Monday, Louise Arbour refused to call the finding a mistake but said it doesn\'t meet the international ban on such removals.

\"In some cases, we may revisit, or courts may be wise to revisit, their original decision just as legislators may be wise to revisit some of their very harsh early legislation in response to the threat of terrorism,\" Arbour said.

\"It\'s a question of interpreting legal standards but international legal standards would be more exacting than what was expressed then.\"

The high court ruling in 2002 came in the case of Sri Lankan refugee Manickavasagam Suresh, who was ordered deported on security grounds.

The court acknowledged the ban on deporting suspects to countries where they face a real risk of torture is absolute under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada is a signatory to the pact.

The court also ruled there may be \"exceptional circumstances\" where removal could be justified, but did not define those.

The ruling has yet to be tested, although Immigration officials have relied on it in the case of several terror suspects to argue they should be deported.

Just last month, the United Nations committee on torture urged Canada to find that the Suresh case had been wrongly decided.

Arbour acknowledged the pressure from human-rights groups and others for Canada to take another look at the decision.

\"The international community has been urging Canada to reconsider that position and to close the door even more firmly that it has,\" said Arbour.

Now the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights based in Geneva, Arbour was on Monday named Canadian of the Year for 2005 by the Canadian Club.

Asked if the ruling was a mistake, Arbour said she couldn\'t comment on the decision itself.

John Norris, a Toronto defence lawyer who is fighting on behalf of several foreigners detained as terrorism suspects, nevertheless praised Arbour\'s candour.

\"Eventually, (this) is going to end up back before the Supreme Court, but until they grapple with it again, we\'re stuck with that decision,\" said Norris.

\"But it will get there, there\'s no doubt about that (and) I believe the court would have a great deal of difficulty reaching the same conclusion as they reached in Suresh.\"

Norris compared the situation to the battle fought over the death penalty, where the Supreme Court reversed its position and outlawed the practice.

Arbour conceded the legal approach many countries adopted after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. in 2001 is \"evolving.\"

As lawmakers and courts begin to review their actions, their views on how best to wage the war on terror will likely moderate, she said.

\"The more distance we now have from Sept. 11, the more I hope we\'ll be able to have a rational cool-headed judgment on what is required and what is appropriate.\"

In her speech to the Canadian Club, Arbour warned about allowing an irrational fear of terrorism to undermine basic human rights and, in the worst cases, lead to arbitrary detentions and torture.

\"A country is as much at risk of destruction . . . by the collapse of its human rights norms . . . than it is by the explosion of bombs on its territory.\"

Arbour also said the most pressing need for international intervention to curb gross human-rights abuses may now be in Nepal.

One lesson she has learned since becoming the high commissioner for human rights last year, she said, was \"never underestimate the force of indifference.\"

Sphere: Related Content