“No Safe Haven” and the Politics of Accountability: The Extradition and Exclusion of Rwandan Genocide Suspects

Abstract This article examines the complex interplay of criminal and immigration law, studying the case of Rwandan (former) asylum-seekers suspected of genocide. The Dutch Government actively pursued their extradition, forging a distinctive cooperation with Rwanda, tied to its “No Safe Haven” policy. The analysis considers how the Netherlands has navigated the legal and political complexities of cooperating with a country lauded for post-genocide judicial reforms but criticised for instrumentalising criminal justice to suppress dissent. The article shows that while early extraditions and deportations did not result in findings of rights violations by the Rwandan or Dutch Governments, more recent cases involving political opponents have altered the picture. For host States, including the Netherlands, persistent impunity for international crimes, the challenges of domestic universal jurisdiction prosecutions, and growing political pressure to restrict immigration have created incentives to fully leverage legal tools to deny residence and facilitate removal. In a context where extradition requests may serve political purposes, the lack of substantive case assessment, combined with the low thresholds and broad discretion that characterise 1F exclusion and citizenship revocation procedures, risks turning immigration law into a proxy for criminal justice and fostering a perception that host States contribute to politicised accountability efforts.