CAT/C/66/D/768/2016
The complaint
3.1
The complainant argues that he risks being subjected to torture or ill-treatment in
Rwanda because of his membership of the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic and
his involvement with Rwandan opposition groups in the Netherlands. He notes that in
Rwanda he was the Secretary-General of the Coalition’s National Committee. He argues
that, since the Rwandan authorities initially requested his extradition for membership of a
criminal organization, the Coalition’s members, like himself, are likely to be categorized as
political opponents. He also submits that the Rwandan authorities hold the Coalition
responsible for using its militia, the impuzamugambi, to kill Tutsis during the 1994
genocide. He argues that although it has not been established that the National Committee,
of which he was the Secretary-General, had any control over or responsibility for the militia
members implicated in the genocide, his de jure responsibility in the Coalition makes him
particularly vulnerable to violations of his right to a fair trial and to humiliating or
degrading treatment. He also notes that he has been accused of being a founder of Radio
Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, a radio station that has been found by the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to have been instrumental in the genocide by inciting
members of the population to kill Tutsi civilians.1 He notes that his alleged founding of the
radio station has not been established and that, in any event, such a role would not in itself
establish any substantial contribution to the genocide.
3.2
The complainant also notes that he was President of the Board of the Federatie van
Rwandese Maatschappelijke Organisaties while in the Netherlands and that in this role he
supported opposition leaders in Rwanda.
3.3
The complainant claims that his membership of the Coalition and his active
involvement in the Rwandan opposition in the Netherlands will make him vulnerable to
treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if extradited to Rwanda. He claims that the
safeguards guaranteed by the Transfer Law will be violated and that, as there is no
independent judiciary, his sentence of life imprisonment is predetermined. He also claims
that any protection he receives under the Transfer Law will end when the trial is over.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
On 26 October 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
of the complaint. It submits that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as (a) the
same matter has already been examined by another procedure of international investigation;
and (b) all available domestic remedies have not been exhausted as the complainant has not
filed a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court.
4.2
The State party notes that the complainant submitted an application for interim
measures before the European Court of Human Rights on 5 July 2016. It argues that the
application concerned the same parties and the same substantive rights as his complaint
before the Committee. It notes that the application for interim measures was denied by the
Court on 8 July 2016 and that the application was declared inadmissible under articles 34
and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the same date. The State party
argues that, although the Court did not specify the exact grounds on which the application
had been found to be inadmissible, it could not have been on mere formal grounds, such as
the expiration of the six months’ time limit for the submission of an application. It argues
that the application was therefore found inadmissible on one of the following grounds: (a)
all domestic remedies had not been exhausted; (b) the applicant was not considered to be a
victim of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights; (c) the application was
considered to be incompatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human
Rights, manifestly ill-founded or an abuse of the right of individual application; or (d) the
1
The complainant refers to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons
Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law
Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other
Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31
December 1994, The Prosecutor v. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al. (case No. ICTR-00-56-T),
judgment of 17 May 2011; and Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor (case No. ICTR-99-52A), judgment of 28 November 2007.
3