CAT/C/66/D/768/2016 it notes that, according to non-governmental organizations, the main human rights problems between 2011 and 2016 were the harassment, arrest and mistreatment of journalists, political opponents and human rights defenders. 6 Most problems seem to concern civil and political rights; the freedom of expression in particular is restricted and there is little scope for criticizing the Government. 6.7 The State party notes that, according to country reports, those found guilty of genocide are not treated differently from other citizens. There have been cases in which those convicted of genocide were afraid to return to their village communities after being released. They were given assistance by government officials. The Government of Rwanda ensures that people do not take revenge, and there have not been many incidents. 7 It notes that, according to country reports, there has been an overall improvement in the situation of Rwandan prisons. The prison system was designed for 54,700 detainees. At the end of 2012, the prison population was 55,618, but by 2015 it had fallen to around 54,000. 8 According to the Rwandan Correctional Service, every prison has dormitories, toilets, sports facilities, a clinic, a reception room, a kitchen, water and electricity. 9 A special regime applies to transfer cases such as the complainant’s case. During their trial, “international” defendants accused of genocide stay in a special, comfortable, high-security wing of Kigali Central Prison.10 In July 2015, five prisoners were housed in this high-security wing. Among other things, they can watch television and use a computer. They also have their own kitchen. 11 If they are convicted, they are transferred to Mpanga Prison, in which conditions meet international standards, partly because of the Transfer Law. Eight prisoners of the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone were held in a specially built wing of Mpanga Prison. 12 The special wing of Mpanga Prison also holds a prisoner extradited by Norway to Rwanda who has been sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment at first instance. He has a spacious, comfortable cell with his own washroom. 13 6.8 The State party refers to jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ahorugeze v. Sweden, in which the Court found that the extradition of a genocide suspect to Rwanda would not amount to a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.14 It noted that the authorities had offered assurances to the effect that the applicant would be detained and serve a possible prison sentence in Mpanga Prison and, temporarily during his trial, be detained at Kigali Central Prison. The Court found that those two facilities met international standards and noted that there was no evidence in the case to indicate that the applicant would face a risk of torture or illtreatment at Mpanga Prison or Kigali Central Prison. 6.9 The State party submits that, although the human rights situation in Rwanda may give some cause for concern, there is no reason to conclude that extradition to Rwanda would in itself involve a risk of violating article 3 of the Convention, or that everyone suspected of genocide who is extradited to Rwanda will be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, especially since a special regime exists for transfer cases like that of the complainant. 6.10 The State party notes the complainant’s claim that his involvement in various organizations that oppose the Government of Rwanda makes him particularly vulnerable to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. The State party argues that the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 United States of America, Department of State, “Country reports on human rights practices for 2015 – Rwanda”. The State party refers to the report on Rwanda by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands dated 28 November 2011. United States, Department of State, “Country reports on human rights practices for 2015 – Rwanda”. United States, Department of State, “Country reports on human rights practices for 2014 – Rwanda”. Ibid. The State party refers to the report on Rwanda by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands dated 18 August 2016. Ibid. The State party refers to the report on Rwanda by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands dated 18 August 2016. European Court of Human Rights, Ahorugeze v. Sweden (application No. 37075/09), judgment of 27 October 2011. 7