CAT/C/63/D/488/2012 11.6 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that all the evidence submitted to the Canadian authorities was examined by, inter alia, the Minister’s delegate and the Federal Court; that, at the time of the complainant’s removal, it had been determined that he would not face any risk of torture; and that, the absence of risk notwithstanding, as a precautionary measure the State party obtained diplomatic assurances from Rwanda, including assurances that any treatment that would be in violation of the Convention was prohibited. The Committee also notes the argument that the complainant’s allegations are general in nature, that he has not submitted any evidence of the existence of a foreseeable, real risk and that the violations that he claims have occurred since his return do not constitute acts of torture under article 1 of the Convention. The Committee further notes the argument that the media interest surrounding the complainant’s case is an additional guarantee that he will not run the risks that he claims that he faces. 11.7 In the light of the information made available to it, the Committee considers that the State party has not violated its obligation under article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 concerns the principle of non-refoulement, which, under the Convention, applies only to treatment that is contrary to article 1 of the Convention. The information supplied by the complainant, which was examined extensively and thoroughly by the Canadian authorities, offers no evidence of a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture in the event of extradition to Rwanda. The supporting documentation provided by the complainant is primarily based on the presumption that the complainant, who had been accused of genocide and was wanted by the Rwandan authorities, would automatically have been at risk of torture. The information made available to the Committee does not, however, contain any reference to allegations of torture following the return (or extradition or transfer) to Rwanda of persons to be tried for acts of genocide. Moreover, although the treatment of the complainant after his return cannot, as previously mentioned, be regarded as a decisive consideration, the allegations submitted to the Committee by the complainant following his return to Rwanda fall outside the scope of article 1 of the Convention and are therefore merely supplementary considerations that lead the Committee to conclude that no violation of article 3 of the Convention has been committed in this case. 11.8 The Committee recalls that the State party, by ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee’s competence under article 22, has undertaken to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in giving full effect to the procedure for examining individual complaints established thereunder. The Committee also notes that article 18 of the Convention vests it with competence to establish its own rules of procedure, which, once they have been instituted, become inseparable from the Convention insofar as they do not contradict it. The Committee also notes that the State party’s obligations include observance of the rules of procedure adopted by the Committee, which are inseparable from the Convention, including rule 114, which is specifically intended to give meaning and scope to articles 3 and 22 of the Convention, since those articles would otherwise offer no more than partial, if not purely theoretical, protection to asylum seekers claiming that they run a serious risk of torture. 24 Consequently, the Committee is of the view that, by sending the complainant back to Rwanda despite the Committee’s request for interim measures, thereby presenting the Committee with a fait accompli, the State party has violated its obligations under article 22 of the Convention. 12. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Rwanda by the State party does not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Nevertheless, his removal to Rwanda on 23 January 2012, notwithstanding the interim measures requested by the Committee on 11 and 12 January, constitutes a breach of article 22 of the Convention. 24 14 R.S. et al v. Switzerland (CAT/C/52/D/481/2011), para. 7; Dar v. Norway (CAT/C/38/D/249/2004), para. 16.3; and Tebourski v. France, para. 8.6. GE.18-15056