CAT/C/66/D/771/2016

examined separately from the merits. The State party’s request for the discontinuance of the
complaint was rejected on the same date.
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
The complainant left Rwanda in April 1994. He initially fled to the Democratic
Republic of Congo where he was granted refugee status by the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees. In 2003, he and his wife fled to the Netherlands, where
they subsequently had three children. He lived in the Netherlands with his family from
2003 to 2016. On 9 July 2013, he was arrested and detained as part of a Netherlands
criminal investigation into his possible involvement in genocide in Rwanda. On 23
September 2013, the Rwandan authorities requested his extradition on charges of genocide
and his detention was extended based on that request.
2.2
The complainant claims that he is a survivor of a massacre of Hutu refugees in the
Democratic Republic of Congo perpetrated by the Rwandese Patriotic Front. He notes that
he spoke about the massacre in an interview with a leading Netherlands magazine in May
2015. He claims that the Government of Rwanda denies involvement in the massacre and
that those who attest to its occurrence risk being subjected to enforced disappearance or
prosecution for “genocide ideology”. On 4 April 2014, he filed a complaint with the
Prosecutor General in Kigali against the President of Rwanda and other senior officials for
their alleged roles in the attacks in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He claims that as a
result he risks being subjected to ill-treatment on return to Rwanda. He notes that he has
also participated in protests against the Government of Rwanda while in the Netherlands
and has also actively supported opposition leaders in Rwanda.
2.3
In addition, the complainant notes that during an interview he gave on the radio
station “Itahuka”, which is affiliated with a Rwandan opposition group, he identified the
Government as complicit in massacres in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He claims
that he is also likely to be targeted by the Government because of his family history. His
mother was Tutsi and his father Hutu. His family was therefore mistrusted by both
communities. Before the genocide his father was an adviser to the largest political party in
Rwanda, the Mouvement républicain national pour la démocratie et le développement.
When the Rwandese Patriotic Front sought his father’s cooperation in the years leading up
to the genocide, his father refused and was therefore perceived as a traitor. Subsequently
both his father and his brother have been subjected to enforced disappearance after having
been arrested by the Rwandese Patriotic Front in 1996 and 1997, respectively.
2.4
On 20 December 2013, The Hague District Court declared the extradition of the
complainant permissible under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide. It found that he had not sufficiently substantiated his claim that he
would suffer a violation of article 6 (right to fair trial) of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) if
extradited to Rwanda. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands
on 17 June 2014.
2.5
On 29 April 2015, the Minister of Justice and Security of the Netherlands approved
the extradition of the complainant, finding that his extradition would not amount to a
violation of article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Minister noted that the complainant would have the right to amnesty and rehabilitation,
if convicted; that there was no risk of torture in the detention facilities; and that the
detention facilities complied with international standards. Regarding a potential violation of
article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Minister concluded that the
Rwandan authorities had confirmed, in a letter of 18 November 2014, that the complainant
had the right to representation by foreign counsel, that the Government of Rwanda would
cover the representation costs and that the Embassy of the Netherlands could monitor the
complainant’s trial and make all reports thereon publicly available. Finally, the Minister
noted that there was no link between the complainant’s alleged political criticism of the
Government of Rwanda and the charges against him. He also noted that the prosecution
against the complainant had already been initiated when the complainant had filed his
complaint against the President of Rwanda.

2

Select target paragraph3