Aegis Trust

Sweden has; the UK, France, Germany and Switzerland haven't.  The ICTR prosecutor would like to, the Appeals Chamber disagrees.  I'm referring of course to the transfer or extradition of Rwandan genocide suspects back to Rwanda to face trial.  Such proceedings have all been affected by concerns about the fairness of any trial.  

Not touching on fair trial issues, the ICLS have published a very useful note on Rwanda's Transfer Law - of interest to any lawyer or diplomat considering the nuts and bolts of transfer and extradition.

Canada's war crimes programme is the longest running in the world, designed to prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven.  Usually they rely on immigration law to deport suspects - like this Iranian Revolutionary Guard - however, Canadian courts have just convicted Désiré Munyaneza on seven counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Prosecutions are much rarer than the use of immigration law because a) of the costs of a prosecution, and b) it's easier to resort to immigration law - the standard of proof is much lower than that required for a criminal conviction.

Read:

- the judgment in English or French

-  the entry in the always excellent Trial Watch website

- Criteria for selecting and prioritising core international crimes cases from PRIO which includes a paper by Terry Beitner of the Canadian War Crimes program, describing where, when and why they choose prosecution over immigration action.