CAT/C/66/D/768/2016 complainant’s claims regarding this alleged risk have been superseded by subsequent events and that this alone warrants the conclusion that he does not face a risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. It also argues that he has not substantiated or explained why his involvement in the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines or Federatie van Rwandese Maatschappelijke Organisaties would cause the Rwandan authorities to regard him as a political opponent. It argues that the prosecution and trial of those suspected of genocide is very important for Rwanda. Compliance with the agreed guarantees, which is necessary if the complainant is to be prosecuted and tried effectively, is therefore in the country’s own interests. This is illustrated by the Rwandan authorities’ willingness to give extensive guarantees and allow far-reaching monitoring, and the fact that, since the complainant’s extradition, they have adhered to all the agreements made. Even if the Government of Rwanda were to attach so much importance to the complainant’s political beliefs that it regarded him as a political opponent, it is highly unlikely that this would result in torture or inhuman treatment given the importance of prosecuting and trying offenders and the ensuing need to treat them properly. The State party argues that there are not enough concrete indications to support such a contention. Furthermore, it submits that the complainant’s claims relating to the right to a fair trial, such as there being no independent judiciary or presumption of innocence, do not fall within the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 6.11 As concerns the complainant’s contention that being held in prison would make him vulnerable because many prisoners are subjected to torture, the State party submits that, whatever the merits of this contention, the complainant’s situation is not comparable to that of other prisoners. The Transfer Law is applicable during the complainant’s trial and substantial guarantees have been agreed with the Government of Rwanda. Under article 23 of the Transfer Law, any person transferred to Rwanda for trial is “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”. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross or an observer appointed by the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals has the right to inspect the conditions of detention. For individuals subject to the Transfer Law, the conditions of detention are therefore not comparable to those of other suspects. In the case of Jean Uwinkindi, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda noted that one of the guarantees under the Transfer Law was that any person transferred, as in the case of the complainant, would be detained in accordance with the minimum standards of detention adopted by the General Assembly. 15 The Rwandan authorities have stated that Mpanga Prison has been designated as the primary location of detention and that the complainant will be held temporarily in Kigali Central Prison. If it is necessary to transfer him to another prison, it will be to a facility that also meets the relevant international standards. 16 The monitoring that has taken place so far shows that the Rwandan authorities are adhering to these agreements. 6.12 The State party notes 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. It argues that this claim is purely speculative. It reiterates that the complainant’s situation is monitored at several levels and that it is highly unlikely that the international community would cease to monitor the complainant’s situation after the trial has concluded. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 7.1 On 9 July 2018, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He maintains that his complaint is admissible. He notes the State party’s submission that the complaint should be declared inadmissible since the complainant has failed to substantiate the claims therein for the purposes of admissibility, that is to say that the Rwandan authorities have treated him in in accordance with the agreements made 15 16 8 Jean Uwinkindi v. the Prosecutor (case No. ICTR-01-75-AR11bis), judgment of 16 December 2011, para. 37. The State party refers to the extradition request from Rwanda to the authorities of the Netherlands.