CAT/C/63/D/488/2012
Mouvement republicain national pour le développement et la démocratie and the Hutu
population at large to kill Tutsi and throw their bodies into the Nyabarongo River.
4.5
The State party then reviews its internal procedures relating to the removal of the
complainant. It refers to the decision taken by the Minister’s delegate on 24 November
2011 and notes that he concluded that the complainant should not be allowed to remain in
Canada owing to the nature and severity of his past actions and that he would not be at risk
of torture if returned to Rwanda. The State party also notes that the Minister’s delegate
based his decision on the human rights situation in Rwanda and the Government’s
continued progress. As for the risk of persecution, the delegate stressed that there was no
reasonable possibility that the complainant would be persecuted if he were returned to
Rwanda because: (1) the Rwandan authorities actively pursue individuals who threaten
persons suspected of having participated in the genocide; (2) the complainant could not
receive a more severe punishment than life imprisonment, since the death penalty had been
abolished in 2007, and the Rwandan Government had undertaken not to sentence the
complainant to a life sentence; (3) the Rwandan Government had pledged to hold him in a
prison that conformed to international standards, prison conditions had improved, and the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was monitoring 74,000 prisoners in order
to ensure that prison conditions were acceptable; (4) given the complainant’s high profile,
he was the object of intense media coverage; and (5) there were no humanitarian grounds
for concluding that his removal would give rise to unusual or undeserved hardship. He also
emphasized that the complainant had never expressed remorse for what he had said and that
he continued to deny that genocide had taken place in Rwanda.
4.6
The State party emphasizes that the complainant had ample opportunity to present
his case to the Minister’s delegate. The delegate had carefully considered all representations
and evidence regarding the risk of torture and the human rights situation in Rwanda. After a
thorough and detailed analysis of that documentation, the delegate had found that it did not
reflect the current situation in Rwanda and could not be given very much weight as
evidence, since the situation had changed a great deal, according to credible, objective
reports.
4.7
Despite the absence of risk, the delegate also bore in mind the clear, precise
diplomatic assurances that Canada had obtained as a precautionary measure from the
Rwandan authorities regarding the treatment of the complainant in Rwanda. In particular,
Rwanda had assured the State party that the complainant would be treated in a manner that
would be in full accordance with the Convention and would be held in Kigali and Mpanga
prisons, which, according to international observers, are in compliance with international
standards.
4.8
The State party explains that, on 11 January 2012, the Federal Court of Canada
rejected the complainant’s petition for a stay of his deportation while his petition for
judicial review of the opinion of the Minister’s delegate was being considered. The Court
held that the delegate’s decision was not based solely on the diplomatic assurances from
Rwanda, but also on his assessment of all the evidence in the case. The Court had ruled that
the delegate had taken into account the diplomatic assurances provided, despite the claims
by NGOs that they could not be relied upon, but had concluded that the Rwandan
Government had made a determined effort to overcome the chaos that had prevailed in the
wake of the tragedy and that the delegate had found no evidence that assurances given by
the Rwandan Government in the past had not been honoured. The Court concluded that the
complainant had failed to demonstrate that the Minister’s delegate had overlooked given
pieces of evidence during the proceedings.
4.9
As for the petition of 4 January 2012 to stay the execution of the deportation order,
the State party notes that the arguments put forward by the complainant were essentially the
same as those set out in his complaint before the Committee. The claims concerning a risk
of torture in Rwanda that have been submitted to the Committee have thus already been
rejected by the Canadian authorities following careful analysis.
4.10 On 12 January 2012, the complainant obtained an interlocutory injunction from the
Superior Court of Quebec which directed the State party to stay his deportation until 20
January. On 23 January, the Superior Court of Quebec granted the authorities’ request to set
4
GE.18-15056