How have the Canadian authorities treated the fact that an applicant has been convicted of murder in Romania?

For example, in his Canadian citizenship application, filed in 1997, just months after he returned to Canada, the applicant failed to disclose the fact that he had been convicted of murder in Romania in 1994. Indeed, while the applicant had spent in excess of three years in Romania between 1992 and 1996, the applicant expressly indicated that he had spent only 190 days away from Canada between June 1996 and December 1996. Further, on his residence questionnaire, the applicant indicated that he left Canada on June 7, 1996 to visit family and had to spend some extra time in Romania to sell some family property. That was obviously a lie. The applicant made no mention of the fact that he was arrested on July 10, 1992, for murder, and remained either imprisoned or hospitalized from that time until he fled Romania in September of 1996. Despite his denial, clearly the applicant deliberately concealed his murder conviction from the Canadian immigration authorities. See Attorney General of Canada v. Iusein, at paras. 29-33. In any event, as I have indicated, I reject the testimony of the applicant that he was repeatedly subjected to violent beatings, tortures and other punishments while imprisoned in the provincial police station.

In a somewhat different context, R.F. Goldstein J. drew the following conclusions, in his disclosure ruling (Attorney General of Canada v. Iusein), at para. 32, about the credibility of the applicant in relation to his allegations of torture: The … problem is simply that [the applicant] never raised these torture allegations, despite opportunities to do so. In fairness, I am aware that it may well be difficult for torture victims to relate their stories. I am also aware that it may be particularly difficult in cases of sexual violence. I am mindful that [the applicant] did mention that he was beaten during the cross-examination on his original bail hearing. The basic problem, however, is that he had a positive duty to disclose his conviction. He could have done that, and made the allegation of torture at that time. He could have made the allegation of torture in his bail affidavit. He did not do so – in fact he positively affirmed that he was released from prison for health reasons related to hepatitis and ulcers. He said nothing about torture, which was the reason he gives in his current affidavit. His current detailed affidavit simply smacks of fabrication, given all of these other lies and misrepresentations. 3. Did the Romanian Prosecutor Rely Upon a Confession Extracted by Police Violence?