Arar lawyer slams ‘secret’ trials
Security certificate cases ‘ unfair’ Ottawa urged to take cue from inquiry
OTTAWA— After months of challenging the federal government’s national security claims that forced evidence at a public inquiry to be heard in private, the Arar inquiry’s lead lawyer is now lashing out against secret court trials in Canada.
Toronto lawyer Paul Cavalluzzo lambasted the federal government yesterday for allowing uncontested evidence to be presented privately to a judge in national security certificate cases. He suggested that the federal inquiry investigating the case of Maher Arar, which wrapped up hearings this week, should be used as a model for security cases involving sensitive intelligence.
While much of the evidence at the inquiry was presented in private, both commission counsel and an independently appointed amicus curiae, or friend of the court, attended the incamera sessions to challenge the accuracy and reliability of the evidence. Government lawyers present the evidence in security certificate cases, which are permitted under immigration legislation to deport non- citizens if they’re deemed a risk to Canada’s security, to a judge alone.
“ I can tell you as a lawyer I find ( security certificates) to be unfair because when an individual’s liberty is at stake, it seems to me, the evidence upon which the government relies should be vigorously tested by lawyers or counsel who are independent of that government,” Cavalluzzo told reporters at a press conference yesterday, suggesting that a “ roster of lawyers” should volunteer to act as independent counsel in these cases. There are currently five national security certificates signed against non- citizens in Canada. One of them has spent five years in solitary confinement in Toronto, fighting his deportation to Egypt, where he says he’ll be tortured. Earlier this year, a federal court justice turned down an application by one of the men to have an amicus curiae appointed in the case. But this month, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear arguments challenging the constitutionality of the process.
Cavalluzzo said yesterday that the Arar inquiry was a unique procedure that can be applied not only to these cases in Canada, but internationally, since it dealt with issues that are “ ripe for review as Western nations are finally beginning to address the human rights fallout of the war against terrorism.”
Since it was called in February 2004, the Arar inquiry heard from 85 witnesses and reviewed 2,461 documents, some, thousands of pages long. The inquiry was called to uncover the role Canadian officials played in the Arar affair. The Ottawa telecommunications engineer, who turns 35 today, was detained in September 2002 in the United States, held for 12 days, and then deported to Syria, where he says he was tortured and held for a year without charges. When the inquiry began, Cavalluzzo and Ron Atkey, the inquiry’s amicus curiae, were less optimistic about the transparency of the inquiry due to heavy censorship by the government for national security claims. But yesterday, both men said they were pleased by the revelations made public and were “ optimistic” that the government will not contest the release of Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report, which would summarize some of the in- camera evidence. O’Connor aimed to complete an interim report by year end but is now aiming for March 31.