CAT/C/RWA/CO/2
ensure that lawyers are not identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a
result of discharging their functions and are able to perform all of their professional
functions without intimidation, in accordance with the Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers (paras. 16–18);
(d)
Have their detention recorded immediately after arrest in a register at
the place of detention and in the Integrated Electronic Case Management System,
including detention by military personnel or in military facilities.
Alleged secret and incommunicado detention
16.
While acknowledging that the legislation prohibits detention in unofficial facilities,
the Committee notes with concern that, for soldiers and their civilian accomplices, the place
of detention could be located in an undetermined place “near the office of Military
Prosecution”. The Committee further notes with concern that the 2008 counter-terrorism
law allows security agents or any “authorized person” to keep suspects in an undetermined
place of detention for up to 48 hours before handing them over to the nearest police station.
Bearing in mind this legal framework, and notwithstanding the State party’s denial of the
existence of secret detention facilities, the Committee remains seriously concerned at
information from various authoritative sources about a continuing practice of illegal
detention in military facilities and in unofficial locations, including at the premises of the
Ministry of Defence, the Kami and Mukamira military camps, the military base known as
the “Gendarmerie” in Rubavu and at detention centres in Bigowe, Mudende and Tumba.
According to the information received, almost all the persons detained were suspected of
threatening State security and were kept incommunicado for prolonged periods, and some
were subsequently transferred to official detention facilities. The Committee remains
seriously concerned at the State party’s failure to clarify whether or not it opened an
investigation into the allegations of unlawful and incommunicado detention in these places,
despite the questions posed by the Committee during the dialogue (arts. 2, 11 and 12).
17.
The State party should:
(a)
Repeal the provisions in its legislation that allow civilians to be detained
by military personnel in military detention facilities or by other authorized persons in
unofficial places of detention;
(b)
Ensure that no one is detained incommunicado or in unofficial places
and that prosecutors promptly review all the detentions by military personnel or
under the 2008 counter-terrorism law, ensuring that civilian detainees who are
designated for potential prosecution are charged and brought before a judge as soon
as possible and that those who are not to be charged are immediately released. If
detention is justified, detainees should be formally accounted for and should be held in
official places of detention with access to their fundamental legal safeguards;
(c)
Investigate the existence of secret non-official detention places, identify
those exercising effective control over those places and bring them to account.
Allegations of ill-treatment and torture in military detention facilities
18.
Recalling its previous recommendation concerning the need to investigate the
alleged cases of torture and ill-treatment in military camps by the Rwanda military
intelligence service (see CAT/C/RWA/CO/1 para. 10), the Committee is seriously
concerned by the State party’s response that no investigations were conducted because the
persons that alleged having been tortured were unknown, and so were the suspects. It is
particularly concerned by the fact that allegations of torture and ill-treatment in military
custody between 2010 and 2016 were raised by at least 29 presumed victims during their
own public trials and that the names of the potential perpetrators were cited in different
testimonies and communicated to the State party by non-governmental sources. In the light
of the above, the Committee regrets the State party’s failure to clarify the reasons why these
allegations did not result in an investigation (arts. 2, 12 and 13).
19.
The Committee draws the attention of the State party to its general comment
No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, in which it indicates that a State’s
4