CAT/C/66/D/768/2016 between the authorities of the Netherlands and Rwanda. The complainant disagrees with this assessment. He notes that he was supposed to be eligible for legal aid, which would have included funds for an investigation, however, no such funds have been made available to him yet. He also notes that he has not been allowed to be in contact with his international counsel. The complainant concedes that he has not, as of yet, been subjected to physical torture or inhuman treatment. However, he claims that he has a legitimate fear of such treatment since he is perceived as a political opponent of the Government of Rwanda and the use of torture is widespread in the country. 7.2 The complainant notes the State party’s argument that the human rights situation in Rwanda has improved over the past years. He argues that recent human rights reports, however, show a different picture and that the Rwandan military has routinely unlawfully detained and tortured detainees through beatings, asphyxiations, mock executions and electric shocks. 17 Complaints about torture in such circumstances have not been investigated and the evidence obtained through torture has not been excluded at trial. 18 The complainant further notes that the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment postponed its monitoring visit to Rwanda on 20 October 2017 because the Government refused to cooperate and severely limited its access to prisoners. The complainant argues that country reports demonstrate that the persecution of perceived political opponents of the Government is a continuing reality and that there is a real and imminent risk that he will be exposed to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment. He also argues that, while there is some level of scrutiny and monitoring of his situation, his situation will change when the monitoring stops. 7.3 The complainant argues that the monitoring reports issued by the International Commission of Jurists are general and do not provide any analysis, conclusions or recommendations about his case. In addition, the reports are published irregularly, sometimes with gaps of six months. The reports include very few details of his treatment, the visitors he is allowed to receive and the possibilities to send and receive post. He argues that there appears to be no transparency in the manner in which the monitoring system functions. There is no concrete workplan or schedule in the agreement between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and the International Commission of Jurists. He notes that the monitoring reports are supposed to act as a safeguard against potential violations of his rights and argues that the general nature of such reports, combined with the fact that their publication is irregular and frequently late, decreases their reliability as a protective measure. He also argues that the intimidation and threats of the Rwandan authorities also have a serious effect on his morale. He claims that the evidence presented against him by the prosecution is based on hearsay and that it has been impossible to find defence witnesses willing to testify for him, as they fear intimidation and persecution if they come forward. Defence lawyers and investigators are also under pressure from the authorities resulting in their having to be very careful in choosing their line of defence. State party’s further submission 8.1 On 10 October 2018, the State party submitted further observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It reiterates its position that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled on the same matter, that the complainant has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies and that he has failed to substantiate the claims for the purposes of admissibility. It also reiterates its submission that, should the Committee find the communication to be admissible, the complaint is without merit. 8.2 As concerns its submission that the complaint should be declared inadmissible since the complainant has failed to substantiate the claims therein for the purposes of admissibility, the State party refers to its submission of 27 July 2017. It notes that the present situation, one year on, shows that the Rwandan authorities are still acting in 17 18 Human Rights Watch, “We Will Force You to Confess”: Torture and Unlawful Military Detention in Rwanda (New York, 10 October 2017). Ibid. and the United States, Department of State, “Country reports on human rights practices for 2017 – Rwanda”. 9