Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program

Appendix A: Key Informant Interview Guide

Interview Guide 1A: Participating Departments
Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program

The Evaluation Division of the Department of Justice, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program. The Department of Justice has retained the services of Goss Gilroy Inc. (GGI) to perform this evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the relevance, success and cost effectiveness of the Program and to determine whether there are more effective alternatives to the current design and delivery elements of the Program.

As part of this evaluation, and along with other methodologies, we are interviewing program partners and key external stakeholders.

At this time, we are requesting your participation in an interview. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. Thank you in advance for your participation and assistance.

Confidentiality: All information that you provide is confidential and will be used only for research purposes. This information will be used in aggregate form, and individual responses will not be shared outside Goss Gilroy Inc. and the Evaluation Divisions of the participating departments.


1. Please describe your role with respect to the War Crimes Program.


  • 2. Are the goals of the War Crimes Program relevant in the context of:
    1. Evolving Government of Canada priorities; (note: including international priorities);
    2. Government-wide and departmental immigration, refugee, security and justice policies;
    3. Canada’s international legal obligations (e.g. the Convention on Torture, the Rome agreement establishing the ICC);
    4. Other border initiatives; (note: relating to, for example, organized crime or terrorism);
    5. The needs of other stakeholders (including for example Canadian NGOs).
  • 3. Have new or different needs arisen related to the prosecution/deportation/exclusion of war crimes suspects?
    1. Have these needs been adequately addressed?

Design and Delivery:

  • 4. How has the change in governance structure (Program Coordination and Operations Committee [PCOC] and the Program Steering Committee) affected the Program and the partners? For example:
    1. Clear definition of roles and responsibilities;
    2. Overall program coordination;
    3. Policy direction and governance.
  • 5. Have changes in operational policies resulted in a more cohesive, efficiently coordinated program? If so, how?
  • 6. To what extent is the Program effective in supporting the delivery of services, in particular with regards to:
    1. Policy development and analysis;
    2. Screening cases;
    3. Analysis of cases;
    4. Investigation and processing;
    5. Interdepartmental cooperation (for example, the File Review Sub-committee)?
  • 7. Is the Program effective in establishing and maintaining partnerships with those managing other border management initiatives (e.g. anti-terrorism and organized crime)?
  • 8. To what extent is the Program effective in establishing and maintaining partnerships with:
    1. other federal departments; and
    2. international partners?
  • 9. How effective and useful is the war crimes training (in terms of staff ability to contribute effectively to program goals) provided to program staff in your department?
    1. Guidelines, manuals;
    2. Interdepartmental training sessions;
    3. Participation by staff in your department (numbers trained/frequency).
    4. Examples ?
  • 10. How does your department access and make use of information/data on program performance, including;
    1. Program performance measurement systems;
    2. Information on best practices;
    3. Policy changes based on performance measurement; or,
    4. Changes in program management and service delivery?


  • 11. To what extent has the Program contributed to an increase in awareness among stakeholders:
    1. Participating departments;
    2. Other government departments;
    3. Canadian NGOs and non-government stakeholders;
    4. International partners?
  • 12. Are allegations managed effectively at each step in the process including:
    1. Compiling allegations;
    2. Screening allegations;
    3. Investigating allegations;
    4. Selecting remedies;
    5. Implementing remedies;
    6. Monitoring and reporting on outcomes?
  • 13. In your view, how do stakeholders perceive the effectiveness of the Program in dealing with war crimes allegations?
  • 14. In your view, does Canada demonstrate international leadership:
    1. In identifying and publicizing war crimes issues;
    2. In regard to the adequacy of its legislative framework;
    3. As a programmatic model for other countries?


  • 15. Has the Program assisted Canada to meet its international obligations? (Examples include: Genocide Convention; Geneva Convention concerning War Crimes and Additional Protocols; Convention Against Torture; Rome Statute/International Criminal Court; Geneva Convention and Additional Protocols concerning the Status of Refugees.)
  • 16. Does the Program meet the objective of denying safe haven in Canada (deterring arrivals and dealing with those residing in Canada)?
  • 17. In your experience, has the Program deterred war criminals from coming to Canada (for example by withdrawing a visa application)?
  • 18. Does Canada currently have the program capacity to effectively address war crimes issues? Does it have an appropriate legislative framework?
  • 19. To your knowledge, what unintended impacts and effects (positive or negative) have resulted from the Program and/or from individual projects?

Cost Effectiveness and Alternatives:

(Note: Interviewer may explain that cost effectiveness need not mean least costly; some remedies may be relatively expensive but can still be cost effective given the purpose they serve and the results achieved.)

  • 20. How effective is your department or agency, given the levels of funding it has received as part of the War Crimes Program?
  • 21. If the Program remains relevant to Canadian Government priorities, what would be the advantages of securing permanent program funding? Please comment.
  • 22. Are there further efficiencies that can be realized in the delivery of the War Crimes Program?
  • 23. In light of the overall goal of denying safe haven, which remedies would you say are most cost effective? Which are least cost effective?
  • 24. Are there more effective and efficient ways to increase awareness of the Program among partners and stakeholders?
  • 25. Are the resources allocated to the Program adequate to achieve its goals when assessed in terms of:
    1. Financial resources for the participating departments;
    2. Policy analysis and policy development resources (including human resources);
    3. Resources for training and staff development;
    4. Resources for compiling and classifying allegations;
    5. Resources for coordination of case files and actions;
    6. Investigative resources;
    7. Resources for enacting remedies including denial of access, exclusion from refugee status, revocation of citizenship, prosecution, etc.
    8. Resources for monitoring performance and identifying best practices;
    9. Resources for outreach and communications activities; and,
    10. Other.
Date modified: