CCPR/C/128/D/2984/2017 (d) The author does not have stamps in his Rwandan passport to support his argument that he returned from Rwanda to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in November 2012; (e) The author failed to submit written documentation in support of his claim that he worked as an interpreter for a non-governmental organization. He also failed to provide a copy of the threatening letters he received or the police reports from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and he has not been able to provide a reasonable explanation as to why he could not submit such documentation; (f) The author travelled between Rwanda and Uganda on several occasions, and he returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, despite the alleged personal risk of persecution by the authorities in these countries. Therefore it can be presumed that none of the authorities of these countries tried to stop him as he has crossed the borders; (g) The author travelled to Sweden with a valid visa granted in his Rwandan passport; hence, it is possible to conclude that the Rwandan authorities must have allowed him to cross the borders without stopping him or arresting him; (h) The author argues that he was an interpreter dealing with information about abuses committed by both sides of the conflict; however, he has not proclaimed to be, or to have been, in possession of any further sensitive information that might be of the interest to the M23 rebel group; (i) The author’s claims of need of protection in Rwanda are largely based on information that he received from his father, and therefore have low probative value. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 The author reiterates that his counsel, appointed by the Swedish migration authorities, appealed the authorities’ decisions without consulting him. He explains that on 11 August 2014, he went to the asylum investigation meeting without having had a chance to exchange information with his counsel beforehand. Consequently, his counsel was not aware of his situation and was unable to understand his story. 5.2 The author further argues that by returning him to Rwanda, the State party would not only violate the Covenant, but also articles 33 to 35 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. His return to Rwanda, which is not his country of origin, will expose him to a threat of death or life imprisonment. The author reiterates that the State party did not consider the documents provided by the UNHCR office in Sweden, which contacted the Ugandan office to inquire about his situation, because his lawyer sent them to the migration authorities after submitting the appeal. 5.3 The author notes that the State party described in its submission the current human rights situation in Rwanda. However, he considers that the Swedish authorities are not aware of the real situation in the country. Many Rwandan refugees have been detained and deported from Uganda to Rwanda by government secret agents in Rwanda. They have been tortured, and some of them have been forcibly disappeared. 6 5.4 The author submits that, contrary to the State party’s assertion and as explained to the authorities of the State party, his Congolese voting card is a valid document. He also provided a document from the Government of Canada confirming that voting cards are used as an identity document by people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He also submits that he contacted the UNHCR office in Sweden to confirm that he is a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He further submits that it is not true that he had not provided an explanation as to why he did not have the passport when he applied for asylum in Sweden. He explained to the migration authorities that the Ugandan police had told his family that they could only give him the passport in person and only if he agreed to sign documents to confirm that he would return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 6 6 The author makes reference to the following documents: Human Rights Watch, “‘We will force you to confess’: torture and unlawful military detention in Rwanda”, 10 October 2017; Human Rights Watch, “‘Why not call this place a prison?’: unlawful detention and ill treatment in Rwanda’s Gikondo Transit Center”, 24 September 2015; and OHCHR, “Prevention of torture: UN human rights body suspends Rwanda visit citing obstructions”, news release, 20 October 2017.