CAT/C/63/D/488/2012 4.16 In his letter of 9 January 2012, T. refers in particular to the right to a fair hearing, the protection of defence witnesses, restrictions on freedom of speech and the use of torture in Rwanda. He does not however specify why the complainant would himself be at a personal risk of torture. No link had been established between the general situation in Rwanda and the specific case of the complainant. 4.17 The affidavit supplied by Ms. M. of 3 January 2012 refers to witness accounts dating back to 2004–2009 that did not reflect the current situation in Rwanda. Even if these reports were true, the affidavit provides no evidence that the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in Rwanda. Any shortcomings in the Rwandan justice system with regard to ensuring a fair hearing and an effective defence, including the opportunity to call defence witnesses, do not amount to acts of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, claims to that effect have been dismissed by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in its recent decisions. In the Bernard Munyagishari case file, the defence argued, on the basis of reports from NGOs, that attorneys representing defendants in sensitive cases had reason to fear for their safety. The Tribunal had pointed out that the reports in question had been published prior to the issuance of a decision in the Uwinkindi case 4 and the amendment of the Rwandan Criminal Code. According to the Tribunal, improvements have been made since that time, and Organic Act No. 11/2007 of 16 March 2007 concerning transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and other States now offers suitable protection for defence lawyers. 4.18 In his letter, Mr. P. refers to cases of persons who have been prosecuted in Rwanda in an attempt to show that the complainant would not have the right to a fair or impartial hearing. As previously mentioned, this issue does not fall within the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 4.19 The State party reiterates that the Minister’s delegate evaluated all the evidence submitted to him and had the authority to give more weight to some pieces of evidence than to others. There was no aspect of his decision that was arbitrary. The State party asserts that the same can be said of the decisions of the Canadian courts. 4.20 With regard to the human rights situation in Rwanda, a number of decisions, particularly those issued by the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, attest to improvements in this regard and in the workings of the judicial system. The complainant’s allegations have not been accepted by the European Court or the Tribunal and do not reflect the current situation in Rwanda. The State party refers, in particular, to the case of Ahorugeze v. Sweden, in which the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no evidence of widespread persecution or ill-treatment in Rwanda and that Kigali and Mpanga prisons were in conformity with international standards, 5 a conclusion shared by the Tribunal. The jurisprudence of the Tribunal also reflects developments in the human rights situation in Rwanda. In the Uwinkindi case, the Referral Chamber of the Tribunal found that issues that had been a cause of concern for the Tribunal’s trial chambers in the past and had led to a refusal to authorize transfers to Rwanda, such as prison conditions and the lack of witness protection, had been dealt with satisfactorily.6 The Referral Chamber’s decision was confirmed by the Appeals Chamber of the Tribunal on 16 December 2011.7 4.21 The State party also refers to the Committee’s concluding observations concerning Rwanda, in which it acknowledged the progress made in providing justice to victims of the genocide and in building a State based on the rule of law. 8 Although, in those concluding 4 5 6 7 8 6 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75R11bis (28 June 2011). European Court of Human Rights, Ahorugeze v. Sweden (application No. 37075/09), Judgment of 27 October 2011, para. 72. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Jean Uwinkindi v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2001-75AR11bis (16 December 2011), para. 60, affirmed by the Appeals Court, para. 39. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75R11bis (28 June 2011), para. 224. CAT/C/RWA/CO/1, para. 3. GE.18-15056