Critically Assessing Sample Written Submissions

Overview

One good way to improve your own writing is by critiquing the writing of others. You may spot errors and become more aware of avoiding them, or you may see elements such as good organization, useful structures, and ways of introducing sections that you would like to emulate. First read Rebin's Narrative below. Then follow the instructions provided.

Rebin's Narrative

Fort Suse in northeastern Iraq (pictured above) was first built as a barracks by Russian engineers in 1977. It was put to various uses since then by the Iraqi government before being converted by the U.S. military and private contractors to a prison in 2005. Fort Suse housed security detainees under the supervision of U.S. military personnel. At that point, all security detainees were transferred to two American holding facilities. Fort Suse was handed over to the Iraqi government and was reconceived as a model prison for convicted criminals.

Rebin, a Kurdish citizen of Iraq, was born in 1985. In September 2006, he was one of the first contingents of new guards hired to work at Fort Suse when it became a civilian prison. Rebin had graduated from a police trainee program run by the U.S. government in May 2006. He then applied and was hired to work in the new prison. He was delighted, as he was born and lived in the nearby town of Piramagroon. He testified that that proximity was his main consideration in accepting the job. For the first 40 to 45 days, he along with the other new guards received training from American and Swedish instructors. Once the prison became operational, Rebin oversaw a workshop where prisoners could develop beekeeping skills, using beekeeping equipment and stocks provided by the International Committee for the Red Cross. He identified prisoners serving sentences for non-violent or minor violent offenses and trained them in beekeeping. They produced honey that they would donate to the needy in Piramagroon and other towns. He remained in this role for five years before being promoted to a more senior administrative position.

At the time that Rebin worked at Fort Suse, other Iraqi prisons were notorious for their mistreatment and torture of prisoners. According to the Amnesty International Report,Iraq: A Decade of Abuses:"Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees became endemic [throughout Iraq] ... amid escalating political and sectarian violence and attacks by armed groups" (14). Rebin, however, testified that Fort Suse was uncommon in that no torture took place there, to his knowledge. He testified that he knew that torture took place in other prisons in Iraq when he applied to work at Fort Suse. When asked why he applied anyway, he said because he needed work and thought he could make a contribution there to rebuilding his country. In 2008 representatives of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment visited Fort Suse, where they were able to speak to detainees without guards present. The Rapporteur stated that they encountered no evidence of torture: "Fort Suse is unique in that regard in Iraq." In 2010, journalists visited the prison. They wrote that they had observed various workshops, open-air courtyards where prisoners played football and other games, televisions linked to satellite dishes, three refrigerators in each hall, and electricity available round the clock, "compared to our cities where we get only two hours per day." Inmates had access to a small hospital with a doctor, assistant physician, pharmacist, and dentist.

Rebin began work as a private. He was promoted to corporal in 2007, to Sergeant in 2010, and to Lieutenant in 2011. Rebin testified that throughout his time at Fort Suse, he occasionally replaced other guards on various assignments, including duties in relation to the transfer of prisoners. He testified that he was twice part of a detail accompanying prisoners being sent to other prisons. On one of these occasions, immediately after the prisoner was turned over to the guards at the other prison, Rebin saw the guards cuff the prisoner on the back of the head and slam him against a wall. The man began whimpering in pain, but Rebin's fellow Fort Suse guard told him they should go: "He's theirs now." Rebin testified that after that he always managed to get out of being assigned to prisoner transfers.

Rebin also testified that occasionally prisoners would be sent to Fort Suse for medical treatment. When he sometimes worked in the hospital wing he would see transferees with wounds that looked like torture wounds. He said that most such medical transferees were sent back once they had recovered from their wounds or illness. From 2011 to 2014, Rebin said he was moved from his role overseeing beekeeping to one in which he assisted in the administration of the prison. He said his responsibilities mostly had to do with determining which prisoners would be funnelled into which programs. Although he had access to prisoners' files, he had no responsibility over the transfer of prisoners into or out of Fort Suse. Rebin testified that he left Fort Suse in 2014 to further pursue his education. He testified that if had not been admitted to his preferred program, he likely would have continued to work at Fort Suse: "Who knows? I might be working there still."

Instructions

You have been provided with two versions of written submissions to the RPD.

Sample 1 and Sample 2

Both are based on Rebin's case which raises questions of exclusion under Article 1F(a). In preparation for the Module 5 Tutorial, read both versions critically. Please post your answers and observations to the following questions:

1. Which sample do you find more persuasive?
2. What opportunities for improvement do you see in both samples? These should include both formal elements, like grammar, spelling, document structure, and organization; as well as substantive concerns, such as the law, application, facts, and arguments.
3. Also, post whether you think Rebin should be excluded from refugee protection and why.

SAMPLE 1

Dear Sir/Madam, This letter is submitted in regards to Rebin's refugee protection application submitted to the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The Minister here submits that the claimant, Rebin, should be excluded pursuant to Article 1F(a) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 UNTS 150 [Convention]. Therefore, he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection as stated in section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. Rebin, a citizen of Iraq, born in 1985, was a graduate of the police trainee program run by the U.S. government and was one the first new guards at Fort Suse prison. In 2006, he joined the prison guard team as a private and was promoted to corporal in 2007, to Sergeant in 2010 and to Lieutenant in 2011. Throughout this time, he was responsible on multiple occasions for transferring the prisoners from Fort Suse to other prisons where they were subject to undue torture. He also witnessed the effect of such ill-treatments when other prisoners would be sent to Fort Suse for medical treatment. In 2011, he was promoted into a more administrative position overseeing the funneling of prisoners into different rehabilitation programs. He stayed in that role for another three years until 2014 when he left Fort Suse to pursue further education. As established in the leading case of Ezokola v. Canada,a claimant is excluded from the definition of "refugee" if there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity. In Ezokola, the Supreme Court establishes that for these reasons to be serious, he needs to have voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to the organization's crime or criminal purpose. The claimant can be complicit without being present at the crime and without physically contributing to the crime. Furthermore, the Supreme Court defines the test to determine whether the claimant was complicit in such crimes and lists several factors to be used in this determination. (a) Voluntary Contribution Rebin voluntarily joined the police trainee program and then applied to work as a prison guard at Fort Suse. He was delighted to accept the job offer. He said that had it not been for plans to pursue his education, he would have likely continued to work at Fort Suse. There is no objective evidence of retaliation against guards leaving the prison system and the client has not testified that he has any subjective fear upon leaving the organization. Rebin had many opportunities to leave the organization but instead accepted promotions and rose through the ranks from a private to a Lieutenant and stayed with the organization for 8 years from 2006 to 2014. As Ezokola states, certain factors such as voluntary joining an organization with a criminal purpose, opportunities for leaving the organization, and remaining with that organization for a long period of time while holding high-ranked positions favor a conclusion that the contribution was voluntary. (b) Significant Contribution Although Rebin did not personally torture prisoners, he was responsible on multiple occasions in transferring prisoners from Fort Suse to other prisons where they were tortured. He also held multiple positions of authority throughout his time there from a private in 2006 leading up to becoming a Lieutenant in 2011 before moving to a more administrative role for the next 3 years. Rebin was working within the Iraqi prison system in which torture and other ill-treatment of prisoners had become endemic according to Amnesty. These ill practices did not limit to but included blindfolding, stripping, suspension by wrists or hanging in stressed positions for long hours as well as electric shocks, whipping, beating, burning by cigarettes and practices of sexual abuse and humiliation. Rebin was in charge of a considerable staff and made a significant contribution to the crimes committed by an organization that by objective reports, is of a considerable size and ill nature. (c) Knowing Contribution Rebin witnessed on multiple occasions torturing of the prisoners while he transferred them from Fort Suse to other prisons. He also witnessed effects of those tortures and severe wounds that needed medical treatment when he worked in the hospital wing of Fort Suse. Ezokola established that a high-ranking individual in an organization who remains with the organization for many years may be more likely to have knowledge of the acts of crime. Considering Rebin's testimonies, the positions of authority he held at Fort Suse and the fact that he was promoted continually throughout his time of 8 years, there exist serious reasons to consider that he was aware of the torture and ill-treatment that was performed within the prison system but yet chose to stay.

SAMPLE 2

Overview Rebin (the claimant) is not a Convention Refugee, or a Person in Need of Protection as he should be excluded from refugee protection under IRPA section 98 under Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.1 There are serious reasons for considering he committed, or was complicit, in crimes against humanity. Facts 1. Rebin is a Kurdish citizen of Iraq, born in Piramagroon in 1985. 2. He graduated from a U.S. run, police trainee program in Iraq May 2006. 3. In September 2006, he was hired as a guard at Iraqi prison, Fort Suse. Rebin received training from American and Swedish soldiers. He started as a private, was promoted to corporal in 2007, Sergeant in 2010, and Lieutenant in 2011. He worked at Fort Suse until 2014. 4. From 2006-2011, Rebin oversaw a workshop where prisoners could develop beekeeping skills. From 2011 to 2014, Rebin assisted in administration of the prison. 5. Rebin witnessed a prisoner being cuffed on back of his head and slammed into a wall when he assisted with a prisoner transfer. He avoided prisoner transfer assignments following this. 6. Rebin saw transferees in the hospital wing of Fort Suse with wounds which looked like torture wounds. 7. In 2014, Rebin left Fort Suse to pursue his education. Had he not been admitted to this education program, he would still be working at Fort Suse. 8. Torture has been identified in Rome Statute as a crime against humanity. 1Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) 9. Serious and widespread abuse and torture of detainees in Iraq is the norm. The use of torture and other ill-treatment is deeply entrenched and widespread in the prison system.3 This was true during the years Rebin worked at Fort Suse. 10. Rebin was trained by U.S. forces, who were known to participate in or turn a blind eye to torture of detainees.4 Applicable Law 11. Section 98 of IRPA states a person is not a Convention Refugee or Person in Need of Protection if they are referred to under in section E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention. 12. Article 1F(a) states: "The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: (a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;..."5 13. In Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the SCC found that to exclude someone from refugee protection based on 1F(a), "there must be serious reasons for considering that the claimant has voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to the organization's crime or criminal purpose."6 The Court endorsed a contribution-based test for complicity to determine whether an individual was complicit in crimes against humanity: 3Iraq: A Decade of Abuses (Amnesty International), 2013. Peter Benenson House: London 4Iraq: A Decade of Abuses (Amnesty International), 2013. Peter Benenson House: London 5Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) 6Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40 i. ii. iii. Voluntary Contribution to the Crime or Criminal Purpose Significant Contribution to the Group's Crime or Criminal Purpose Knowing Contribution to the Crime or Criminal Purpose Application of the law to the facts 14. Considering the contribution-based test for complicity in this case, evidence shows: i. ii. Rebin knew torture took place in other prisons in Iraq prior to applying at Fort Suse, yet he applied and accepted a position at the prison and worked there for eight years. He made no efforts to leave Fort Suse and would likely still be there were it not for his acceptance into an education program. Rebin was not under any duress to remain working at Fort Suse or told he would suffer repercussions should he leave his position. He made a voluntary contribution. Rebin received multiple promotions during his time at Fort Suse, and for 3 years he assisted in administration of the prison. In Sivakumar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) the Court found it is important to consider whether the individual protested or tried to stop the crime or attempted to withdraw from the organization, especially when holding a leadership position. Rebin made no attempts to protest or leave Fort Suse. He moved through several positions of leadership with the prison, contributing to the shared purpose of the prison system in Iraq, which included torture. As the Court previously stated, "The closer a person is involved in the decision-making process and the less he does to oppose or prevent the decision, or fails to dissociate himself from it, the more likely that person's criminal responsibility will be at stake."9 3 4 iii. Rebin had knowledge of and witnessed torture, and there was documented widespread abuse and torture of detainees in Iraq before and during his time at Fort Suse. "First, by its very nature, complicity does not require that the individual personally commit the criminal act, but rather that they contribute to it, either directly, or through their role in an organization's criminal purpose."10 Conclusion 15. There are serious reasons to consider that Rebin was complicit in crimes against humanity for his role with the Iraqi prison system and should therefore be excluded from refugee protection as per IRPA section 98, under Articles 1F(a) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.