CAT/C/66/D/768/2016
applicant was considered not to have suffered a significant disadvantage. The State party
argues that these grounds include a certain examination of the merits of the complaint, thus
rendering the complaint before the Committee inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the
Convention.
4.3
On 23 January 2017, the State party submitted a request for discontinuance of the
complaint or, failing that, for it to be declared inadmissible since the complainant had failed
to substantiate the claims therein for the purposes of admissibility. The State party notes
that the complainant was extradited to Rwanda on 12 November 2016 and that his detention
has since been monitored by the International Commission of Jurists. The State party also
notes that, on 6 December 2016, staff from the Embassy of the Netherlands visited the
complainant in detention. During this visit the complainant confirmed that the Rwandan
authorities had treated him in a correct manner and that they had facilitated visits by family
members, access to legal counsel and monitoring by the International Commission of
Jurists. Additionally, the complainant confirmed that his initial fear of being tortured or
otherwise ill-treated had proven ill-founded. For this reason, the State party requested the
Committee to discontinue the complaint or, alternatively, declare it inadmissible since the
complainant had failed to substantiate the claims therein for the purposes of admissibility.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility
5.1
On 12 January 2017, the complainant provided his comments on the State party’s
observations on the admissibility of the complaint. He argues that his application to the
European Court of Human Rights was limited to requesting interim measures and did not
include a request to determine the complaint on the merits. He notes that, on 8 July 2016,
the Court dismissed the request for interim measures in two sentences, stating that “the
Court (the duty judge) decided not to indicate to the Government of the Netherlands, under
Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, the interim measure you are seeking. Therefore, the
Court will not prevent the applicant’s removal”. In the three subsequent paragraphs, the
Court declared the application inadmissible. The Court’s decision fails to specify the
grounds on which the dismissal was based. It only states “that the conditions of
admissibility provided for in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention were not fulfilled”. The
complainant argues that, without any proper explanation from the Court, the application’s
dismissal could have been based on procedural grounds.
5.2
As regards the State party’s submission that the complaint should be declared
inadmissible since not all domestic remedies had been exhausted, the complainant argues
that he was not required to lodge an appeal in cassation before the Supreme Court in order
to exhaust all available domestic remedies, as a cassation appeal does not have suspensive
effect. At the time he submitted his complaint before the Committee, his extradition was
imminent, so even if an appeal had been made, he would have been extradited by the time
the Supreme Court had rendered its decision.
5.3
On 24 February 2017, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s
request for discontinuance and further observations on the admissibility of the complaint.
The complainant notes that his concerns about his safety in the Rwandan justice system are
far from resolved. He notes that, while it is true that he has thus far been treated correctly,
the situation in Rwanda remains unpredictable. He adds that his concern was never that he
would be subjected to inhuman treatment from the moment of his arrival. The Rwandan
authorities are aware that the proceedings are monitored by the authorities of the
Netherlands. His concern is what will happen when his detention or imprisonment is no
longer monitored. He submits that the risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment at a
later stage, after the imposition of a sentence, is still as real as it was prior to his extradition
to Rwanda. He claims that there is no guarantee that those suspected of having committed
genocide who are tried under the Transfer Law can escape the ill-treatment that Rwandan
prisons are notorious for.2
2
4
The Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Thematisch Ambtsbericht over Mensenrechten en
Justitie in Rwanda (The Hague, 18 August 2016).