Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program


The evaluation employed a multi-method approach to address the evaluation issues and ensure that multiple lines of evidence were employed.

Qualitative methods used during the evaluation included:

Structured interviews with participating departmental staff, other government departments (OGDs), international partner organizations and key external stakeholders in Canada and abroad.

International partners interviewed included international police and criminal justice organizations and persons involved in war crimes programs in Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America (USA). External stakeholders interviewed included Canadian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) representing victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity (including torture) and human rights organizations as well as university researchers and groups representing Canadians of different ethnicity and origin. Internationally, external stakeholders were interviewed from organizations advocating for international justice and the prosecution of war criminals, as well as law faculty and university researchers;

  • A detailed review of program documents including program planning and budgeting documents, meeting minutes and records of decisions, program files, operational and annual reports, evaluation reports, departmental Websites, operational manuals and other relevant documents;
  • Case studies representing five of the nine different remedies available under the Program to deal with persons suspected of involvement in crimes against humanity or war crimes. The cases were selected based on their ability to illustrate the cross-departmental coordination and information-sharing mechanisms. As they were selected to provide a variety of the remedies with a range of complexity and partner involvement, the actual case outcomes were not a determining factor. They highlighted some of the phenomena found in the broader-based methods, e.g. interviews and survey.
    • Case Study 1 (Remedy 4: Prosecution);
    • Case Study 2 (Remedy 7: Revocation of Citizenship and Deportation);
    • Case Study 3 (Remedy 8: Inquiry and Removal from Canada under the IRPA);
    • Case Study 4 (Remedy 1: Denial of a Visa); and,
    • Case Study 5 (Remedy 9, Denial of Status under Section 35 (1) (b) of the IRPA).
  • Country Studies of three comparison countries with active programs for apprehending and deterring those involved in war crimes (the Netherlands, Australia and the USA) comparing program structures, human resources, legislative basis, and, where possible, outcomes; and,
  • A content analysis of Canadian media coverage of cases dealing with crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Quantitative evaluation methods used included:

  • A review of program statistics as reported in Annual Reports;
  • A survey of program staff from the four participating departments; and,
  • A detailed process flow description and cost analysis of the nine remedies available to the Program as part of the allegation management process. The completed remedy process flow diagrams are provided in Appendix D.

The coverage of the evaluation methods, response rates to surveys and any resulting limitations are discussed in Appendix E: Research Methods and their Limitations.

Date modified: