CAT/C/66/D/768/2016 information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 25 10.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he risks being subjected to torture or ill-treatment in Rwanda as he will be perceived as a political opponent by the Rwandan authorities because of his membership of the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic and his involvement in the Rwandan opposition in the Netherlands. The Committee also notes his claims that the safeguards guaranteed by the Transfer Law are insufficient as a protective measure. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has been extradited to Rwanda under the Transfer Law and will therefore be detained in conditions that meet international standards and that, if convicted, he will serve his sentence in a prison meeting international standards. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that the Rwandan authorities would regard him as a political opponent. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s claim that he is at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention after the trial has concluded is purely speculative. 10.7 The Committee notes that the complainant’s claims of being at risk of torture or illtreatment if extradited were examined by the State party authorities prior to his extradition. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not provided any specific information or evidence indicating that he would face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture if extradited to Rwanda. The Committee further notes that the complainant was extradited under the Transfer Law, which prescribes that any person transferred to Rwanda for trial under the law will be detained in accordance with international minimum standards of detention.26 The Committee notes that the complainant has been detained in Mpanga Prison and Kigali Central Prison, which have been found to meet international minimum standards of detention. 27 The Committee also notes that the complainant was extradited under a monitoring agreement and that regular monitoring of his detention has been carried out by the International Commission of Jurists. The Committee further notes that the claims made by the complainant are primarily based on the presumption that, as a person extradited on genocide charges, he would automatically be at risk of torture on return to Rwanda. The Committee notes, however, that the information presented by the complainant does not contain any specific reference to allegations of torture of Rwandans returned, under the Transfer Law, to be tried for acts of genocide. 28 The Committee also notes that the complainant has not presented any concrete information that would substantiate his claim of being at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claims that his extradition to Rwanda would expose him to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Rwanda by the State party does not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 25 26 27 28 12 Ibid., para. 50. Article 23 of the Transfer Law stipulates that: “Any person who is transferred to Rwanda by the [International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda] for trial shall be detained in accordance with the minimum standards of detention stipulated in the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December, 1998. In accordance with article 24 of the Transfer Law, it applies “mutatis mutandis in other matters where there is transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from other States or where transfer of cases or extradition of suspects is sought by the Republic of Rwanda from other States”. Ahorugeze v. Sweden, para. 92. See also L.M. v. Canada, para. 11.5.