CAT/C/63/D/488/2012 observations, the Committee still noted a number of human rights violations in Rwanda and said that prison conditions were poor, it did not state that torture was endemic in the country. 4.22 Even though the complainant did not face any risk, the State party nonetheless secured clear and precise diplomatic assurances from Rwanda as an added precaution on 27 March and 24 December 2009. It was in the interests of the Rwandan authorities to honour the diplomatic assurances they provided and to ensure the complainant’s safety, given their commitment to do so and the importance that Rwanda attaches to maintaining good diplomatic relations with Canada and, among others, the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which have, moreover, accepted and acted upon similar assurances offered by Rwanda in the past. A failure to honour its assurances could seriously undermine the country’s future ability to receive and bring to justice persons accused of committing criminal acts in its territory. Although the State party has not put in place a specific mechanism for monitoring the situation of the complainant, it notes that ICRC monitors the prison conditions to which persons transferred to Rwanda are subject, including conditions in Mpanga prison. Moreover, as the Minister’s delegate concluded, given the complainant’s high profile and the intense media interest in his case, his situation will be closely monitored and the authorities will take particular care to respect his rights. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 5.1 On 1 November 2012, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations, noting that he had been extradited to Rwanda notwithstanding the interim measures requested by the Committee. The day after his arrival, he was taken to the prison in the city of Kigali. On 2 February, the complainant appeared before the High Court of Rwanda, where he was informed of the charges against him, including incitement to murder, hatred and genocide and planning the genocide. 5.2 The complainant clarifies that he is not asking the Committee to substitute its own findings for those of the Canadian authorities. What he seeks to show is that there has been a deliberate attempt to deny that he faces a risk of persecution, torture and ill-treatment. He recalls that the Committee is not bound by such findings, and “instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case”.9 5.3 With regard to his situation in Rwanda, the complainant asserts that the risk of being subjected to torture that he faces stems not only from his arrest and detention but also from the fact that he has been classified as a political opponent and an enemy of the State and from the treatment that the State reserves for individuals in that category. It is not necessary for the author of a communication to have been subjected to torture in the past in order for that individual to be personally at risk; if it were otherwise, the objective of the Convention and the Committee of preventing acts of torture could never be achieved. 5.4 The complainant considers his personal circumstances to be such that he still runs a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture in Rwanda. The Committee has specified that, for a risk of torture to be shown to exist, it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. 10 The fact that the complainant is considered a political opponent and has received media attention increases the risk of his being subjected to psychological and physical torture. 5.5 The argument that the information contained in the declarants’ affidavits is out of date is unfounded. The complainant presents the facts that occurred up to the end of 2011, which is relevant to the Committee’s analysis because the Minister’s delegate reached his decision in November 2011 and the complainant was sent back to Rwanda on 23 January 2012. In T.’s letter of 9 January 2012, he states that the complainant is considered to be a 9 10 GE.18-15056 E.L. v. Canada (CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 and CAT/C/48/D/370/2009/Corr.1), para. 8.4, and M.A.M.A. et al. v. Sweden (CAT/C/48/D/391/2009), para. 9.4. A/53/44, Annex IX, para. 299. 7