INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section allows Canada to prosecute Canadians, non-citizens residing in Canada, and permanent residents present in Canada for certain cultural property offences committed outside of Canada.
SECTION WORDING
7.(2.01) Despite anything in this Act or any other Act, a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute an offence under section 322, 341, 344, 380, 430 or 434 in relation to cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention, or a conspiracy or an attempt to commit such an offence, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to such an offence, is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada if the person (a) is a Canadian citizen; (b) is not a citizen of any state and ordinarily resides in Canada; or (c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and is, after the commission of the act or omission, present in Canada.
EXPLANATION
Section 7(2.01) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that deals with the extraterritorial application of certain offences related to cultural property. It states that a person who commits an act outside Canada that would constitute an offence under sections 322, 341, 344, 380, 430 or 434 in relation to cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention, is deemed to have committed that act in Canada if they meet one of the three criteria listed in the provision. The offences listed in this provision relate to the theft, possession, sale, or destruction of cultural property, including historical artifacts, archaeological sites, and monuments. The provision is designed to prevent these crimes from occurring outside of Canada and then having the offender escape prosecution by returning to Canada. The first criterion is that the person must be a Canadian citizen. This means that Canadian citizens who commit these types of offences abroad can be charged and tried in Canada, regardless of where the offence took place. The second criterion is that the person is not a citizen of any state and ordinarily resides in Canada. This means that stateless individuals who commit these offences abroad and reside in Canada can be prosecuted in Canada as well. The third criterion is that the person is a permanent resident of Canada and is present in Canada after the commission of the offence. This means that permanent residents who commit these offences abroad and return to Canada can also be charged and tried in Canada. Overall, this provision is a crucial tool in protecting cultural heritage and holding offenders accountable for their actions, even if they commit the offence outside of Canada. It allows Canada to fulfill its obligations under international law and demonstrate its commitment to protecting cultural property.
COMMENTARY
Section 7(2.01) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a unique provision that extends the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to offences committed outside of Canada. This provision aims to protect cultural property located outside of Canada from being illegally trafficked or vandalized by Canadian citizens or those who have a strong connection to Canada. The section specifically addresses six relevant offences that fall under the category of cultural property, which is defined in Article 1 of the Convention. These offences include theft, mischief, fraud, and other related criminal acts. The Convention, which was adopted by Canada in 1970, recognizes the importance of protecting cultural heritage around the world and provides guidelines for international cooperation to prevent the illicit trafficking of cultural property. One of the key features of Section 7(2.01) is that it deems an act or omission committed outside of Canada to have occurred within Canada if the perpetrator is a Canadian citizen, ordinarily resides in Canada, or is a permanent resident of Canada. This means that individuals who commit these offences while living overseas or traveling abroad can still face criminal charges in Canada. Additionally, this provision allows for charges to be brought against an individual who conspires or attempts to commit an offence related to cultural property. The provision further extends to those who are accessories after the fact or counsel others in relation to such an offence. This means that individuals who aid or abet others in the commission of these offences can also be held accountable under Canadian law. The importance of this provision cannot be overestimated. By extending the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, Canada is demonstrating its commitment to the protection of cultural heritage and its willingness to prosecute those who participate in the illicit trafficking of cultural property. This provision is particularly important as cultural property theft and trafficking continues to be a significant problem in many parts of the world. In fact, it is estimated that the illicit trade in cultural property amounts to billions of dollars annually. In conclusion, Section 7(2.01) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a strong example of Canada's commitment to the protection of cultural heritage. It demonstrates the importance of recognizing the global significance of cultural property and the need for international cooperation to protect it. Moreover, by extending the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, this provision provides a powerful deterrent to those who would engage in the illicit trafficking of cultural property.
STRATEGY
Section 7(2.01) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides for the extraterritorial application of certain offences in relation to cultural property. The practical implications of this section are significant for law enforcement agencies, cultural organizations, and individuals alike. When dealing with this section, there are several strategic considerations that should be taken into account. 1. Jurisdictional Considerations: One important consideration when dealing with section 7(2.01) is jurisdiction. Canadian authorities may have difficulty obtaining evidence from foreign countries, which can pose a significant challenge when attempting to prosecute individuals for offences committed outside Canada. Thus, law enforcement agencies must develop strategies for gathering sufficient evidence to make a credible case in court, even if much of that evidence is located overseas. 2. Regulatory Cooperation: Cultural organizations and other stakeholders must be aware of the regulatory framework created by Section 7(2.01) and take proactive steps to cooperate with law enforcement authorities where necessary to protect cultural heritage assets. For example, museums and other institutions should devise protocols for safeguarding cultural property from theft and illegal trafficking and maintain up-to-date inventories of their collections. 3. Public Education: Public education is also an essential tool to combat cultural property crime. Cultural organizations and government agencies should increase public awareness of the importance of cultural heritage, how to identify stolen artifacts, and how to report suspicious activity to law enforcement agencies. By mobilizing the public to become partners in the fight against cultural property crime, law enforcement authorities are more likely to obtain timely information that can lead to successful investigations. 4. International Cooperation: Finally, international cooperation is a crucial aspect of preventing and prosecuting cultural property offences. Canadian law enforcement agencies must work with their counterparts in other countries to share information, exchange intelligence, and coordinate enforcement activities. The international community must also work together to develop more effective legal frameworks and criminal justice mechanisms to punish offenders and prevent further crimes from occurring. Strategies that could be employed include strengthening international cooperation with other countries, increasing public awareness about cultural heritage crimes, enhancing regulatory frameworks, instituting stricter controls, imposing severe penalties for individuals accused of cultural property offences, identifying and seizing the proceeds of such crimes, and strengthening legal and institutional frameworks. Overall, it is critical that all stakeholders work together to protect cultural heritage assets and prosecute those who seek to profit from their destruction.