CAT/C/63/D/488/2012 complainant’s return to Rwanda would amount to a death sentence, as it is impossible for anyone who denies that the genocide happened to be judged impartially in Rwanda. In an affidavit dated 3 January 2012, Ms. M., counsel for the defence before 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, stated that a public figure such as the complainant would undoubtedly run a risk of being tortured and being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Rwanda. She further stated that no one would dare to defend him there for fear of reprisals. The complainant also cites a letter dated 3 January 2012, in which Mr. P., who was also involved in the work of the Tribunal, states that, given the current climate in Rwanda, returning a Rwandan refugee and political opponent such as the complainant to that country would constitute a serious violation of his fundamental rights. 3.3 The complainant refers to the decision of the Minister’s delegate of 24 November 2011, in which the delegate acknowledges that the complainant is sought by the Rwandan authorities. According to the complainant, this means that he would undoubtedly be arrested upon his arrival in Rwanda. 3.4 The complainant alleges that the domestic courts’ decisions to return him to Rwanda are arbitrary. In particular, he criticizes the fact that the Minister’s delegate based his decision on written diplomatic assurances provided by Rwanda while ignoring the fact that such assurances had also been given to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and to various countries but had been rejected as unreliable. Thus, before concluding that there was no evidence that such assurances had not been honoured in the past, the delegate should have examined the evidence contained in reports of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).3 State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 On 28 February 2012, the State party asserted that it had not returned the complainant to a place where he ran the risk of being tortured. The State party takes its international obligations under the Convention against Torture seriously and had acted in good faith when considering whether it was appropriate to comply with the Committee’s request for interim measures. After a detailed review of the case file, however, the State party concluded that the complainant had failed to establish that he would run a substantial risk of being tortured in Rwanda. It attaches a copy of the diplomatic assurances provided by Rwanda on 27 March and 24 December 2009. It also observes that requests for interim measures made in accordance with the Committee’s rules of procedure are not binding. 4.2 On 26 July 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint. The State party considers the complaint to be inadmissible because it is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and is unsubstantiated. Regarding the merits of the complaint, the State party challenges the contention that article 3 of the Convention has been violated. 4.3 The State party asserts that, on 22 November 1992, when he was vice-president of the Mouvement republicain national pour le développement et la démocratie (National Republican Movement for Development and Democracy) in the prefecture of Gisenyi, the complainant delivered a speech in which he called for the extermination of the Tutsi ethnic group. A few months prior to the complainant’s speech, a group of Tutsi had been massacred in Gisenyi. Following that speech, the Rwandan authorities issued a warrant for his arrest. He fled the country soon afterward with his family and sought refuge in Spain. In 1993, the Canadian Embassy in Madrid granted him refugee status. 4.4 On 13 January 1995, a new warrant was issued by the prosecutor’s office in Rwanda that modified the original warrant. The new warrant stated that the complainant was wanted by the authorities for having conspired to commit genocide by inciting supporters of the 3 GE.18-15056 The complainant also claims that his deportation would constitute a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 3

Select target paragraph3