CAT/C/66/D/768/2016 5.4 The complainant submits that his rights are already at risk of being violated. He claims that there is lack of clarity about the monitoring agreement as it is still unknown which aspects of the proceedings will be monitored, the frequency of such monitoring, to whom the monitors report and the potential consequences, if any, that could follow from the monitoring reports. The complainant also claims that there is a risk that he will be charged with membership of the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic. He states that this became apparent during the first hearing on 6 December 2016, when the allegations against him were read out. One of the allegations referred to his membership of the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic, despite the fact that his extradition had been authorized only for his alleged individual and direct participation in the genocide. The complainant alleges that the evidence presented so far is not sufficient to proceed to trial. He adds that his counsel has received information according to which attempts are being made to pressure prisoners to provide incriminating statements against him. He therefore claims that there are doubts as to whether the proceedings against him will be conducted fairly. 5.5 The complainant notes that it is correct that he was entitled to receive visitors and make telephone calls to his family in the Netherlands while in detention. However, recently, he was moved from Kigali Central Prison to Mpanga Prison, which is in a remote location outside Kigali. Others accused of genocide were only transferred to Mpanga Prison after the end of their trials. Since his move, his contact with the outside world has been reduced significantly. Telephone contact and visits have been much more strictly controlled due to the logistical difficulties in reaching the location. The distance to Kigali also complicates the monitoring process. The complainant therefore submits that, while he has not yet been exposed to any inhuman or degrading treatment, the risk of being exposed to such treatment in the future still exists, in particular in light of the unpredictability of the conduct of the Rwandan authorities. State party’s observations on the merits and further observations on the admissibility of the complaint 6.1 On 27 July 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint and further observations on its admissibility. It notes that, on 22 November 2012, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Rwanda requested the authorities of the Netherlands to extradite the complainant so that he could be prosecuted under criminal law. The complainant was suspected of having committed the following offences in the period from 7 April to 14 July 1994: genocide; complicity in genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; murder as a crime against humanity; extermination as a crime against humanity; violation of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; and formation, membership and leadership of and participation in an association of a criminal gang whose purpose and existence is to do harm to people or their property. 6.2 The complainant was arrested on 23 January 2014. On 11 July 2014, the extradition chamber of The Hague District Court held that the requested extradition was permissible in respect of the charges of genocide and attempted genocide, but not in respect of the other charges because the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide did not provide a valid basis for extradition on these charges. The complainant lodged an appeal in cassation against the District Court’s judgment, which the Supreme Court dismissed on 16 December 2014. In a decision of 3 June 2015, the Minister of Justice and Security allowed the extradition in accordance with the judgment of the District Court. The complainant then initiated proceedings against the State before the District Court, with the aim of obtaining an order prohibiting the State party from extraditing him to Rwanda. On 27 November 2015, the District Court prohibited the extradition of the complainant because it considered that there was a well-founded reason for assuming that his extradition to Rwanda would lead to a breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The State lodged an appeal against this judgment before The Hague Court of Appeal. On 5 July 2016, the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the District Court. It found that the complainant, if extradited, would not be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of articles 2, 3, 6 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 5