CAT/C/63/D/488/2012 been subjected since his arrival in Rwanda does not constitute acts of torture within the meaning of the Convention, and the diplomatic assurances provided by Rwanda are sufficient and reliable; they were subjected to judicial review by the Federal Court, and their observance is subject to monitoring by ICRC. Furthermore, the State party rejects the complainant’s claim that he should have been tried in Canada under the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act on the grounds that it is devoid of any substantiating argument or evidence as to its relevance or to a finding of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8.4 On 11 April 2018, the State party indicated that it would not submit any additional comments. Additional comments by the complainant 9.1 On 27 April 2017, the complainant provided additional comments. He recalled his earlier claims and reiterated that he had submitted evidence to demonstrate that his removal to Rwanda had exposed him to a real and personal risk of torture and that Canada had deported him despite being aware of these risks, the existence of which was welldocumented. The fact that the State party sought diplomatic assurances constitutes an implicit recognition on its part that torture is practised in Rwanda. The State party lifted its moratorium on returning people to Rwanda on 23 July 2009 despite the fact that the Rwandese Patriotic Front, which is suspected of committing serious crimes against humanity, has controlled the courts, the press and political life in Rwanda since 2004. 9.2 Now being held in prison in Rwanda, the complainant claims that he has been subjected to forms of ill-treatment such as deprivation of food, sleep and medical assistance and poor conditions of detention. He maintains that the cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment referred to in article 16 of the Convention is supplementary to the concept of torture as set forth in article 3 of the Convention. Given his vulnerability as a detainee, he is continually exposed to a risk of torture, including death threats and humiliation by secret service agents, and violations of his procedural rights, which would not have been the case if he had been tried in Canada. He notes that access to counsel and to his family has been restricted and that he has not been provided with legal aid. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a), that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.2 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that it has not been substantiated and that it is incompatible with the Convention because the complainant claims violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. It also submits that the alleged risks do not constitute acts of torture within the meaning of the Convention. 10.3 Although the Committee may examine a complainant’s allegations in the light of other human rights instruments, its mandate is to monitor compliance by States parties with the Convention. The complainant’s claims regarding provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees are therefore inadmissible under article 22 (1) of the Convention. 10.4 The Committee considers that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility the portion of his complaint regarding the risk involved in the event of his return to Rwanda. 10.5 The Committee concludes that the complaint is admissible under article 22 of the Convention and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 12 GE.18-15056