CAT/C/66/D/771/2016
2.6
The complainant challenged the decision of the Minister of Justice and Security
before The Hague District Court. On 27 November 2015, the District Court found that the
assurances from the Rwandan authorities regarding fair trial proceedings would not de facto
guarantee that the complainant would receive a fair trial, as defence counsels in Rwanda
were inadequate and had insufficient funds to conduct effective investigations. On 5 July
2016, The Hague Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the District Court. It noted that
the complainant’s submission regarding the alleged inadequate defence in similar trials
under the “Organic law No. 11/2007 of 16 March 2007 concerning transfer of cases to the
Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other
States” (Transfer Law) did not establish a violation so fundamental as to amount to a
nullification of his rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It
also noted that many of the judicial inadequacies alleged by the complainant had been
resolved; that he had not demonstrated that human rights violations in Rwanda and judicial
deficiencies in the trials of political opponents were applicable in his case; that he would be
tried on genocide charges, not charges related to political offences; and that the extradition
would not amount to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that he risks being subjected to torture or ill-treatment on
return to Rwanda due to his affiliation with opposition groups in Rwanda, his complaint
against senior Rwandan officials and his family circumstances. The complainant claims that
the safeguards guaranteed by the Transfer Law will not be complied with, and that, as there
is no independent judiciary, his sentence of life imprisonment is predetermined. He further
argues 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 27 October 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
of the complaint. It submitted that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the
same matter had already been examined by another procedure of international investigation
and also for failure to exhaust all available domestic remedies under article 22 (5) (b) of the
Convention, as the complainant had failed to file 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 concerning the same
parties and the same substantive rights as his complaint before the Committee. It also 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 was found to be
inadmissible, it could not have been on merely formal grounds, such as the expiration of the
six-month time limit for the submission of an application. It argues that the application
must have therefore been found inadmissible for one of the following reasons: (a) failure to
exhaust domestic remedies; (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 process; or (d) the applicant was considered not to
have suffered a significant disadvantage. The State party argues that such 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 that the complaint be either
discontinued or, alternatively, declared inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claims
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 of the Embassy of the Netherlands visited the complainant in detention. During the
3