CAT/C/63/D/488/2012 would honour its commitments, given the lack of documentation in that regard. Moreover, Canada has admitted that it had not put in place any specific monitoring mechanism for the complainant to ensure that the corresponding diplomatic assurances will be respected. The Committee has previously found that assurances of a general nature unsupported by a monitoring mechanism are insufficient. 14 5.13 The State party is incorrect in asserting that the fact that ICRC monitors prison conditions in the cases of persons transferred to Rwanda compensates for the failure by Canada to establish a monitoring mechanism. According to the ICRC rules of procedure, visits are confidential and its observations are conveyed only to the authorities concerned. There is thus no way of knowing whether ICRC has visited a particular prisoner or whether there has been any monitoring of the conditions under which a particular prisoner is being held. ICRC has no more than monitoring and advisory powers, which does not constitute an effective mechanism for redress in cases of torture. 5.14 The State party’s failure to cooperate and to accede to the Committee’s request for interim measures constitute a violation of article 22 of the Convention. 5.15 The treatment of the complainant since his return to Rwanda is in violation of the diplomatic assurances that were provided, given that several detainees in the same prison as him have been tortured in illegal centres before being handed over to the judicial authorities. He himself has received death threats and was subjected to humiliating treatment by a secret service agent in the prison who told him “You know I can shoot you down” when he tried to complain about the prison conditions. The complainant lives in constant fear of being assassinated because of his notoriety and other prisoners’ and the authorities’ attitude towards him. Moreover, as he is in pretrial detention and no longer under police supervision, he fears that the secret service will take him to an illegal facility and torture him in order to extract a confession. The complainant also claims that his right to contact his family is observed only sporadically. He says that the food provided to him is insufficient and that his health has suffered as a result. He also refers to irregularities in judicial proceedings in his case. Lastly, he claims that he does not have access to a place of worship and that his right to practise his religion is being violated. 5.16 On 4 February 2013, the complainant attached a letter from Mr. R., the Rwandan lawyer representing him, who alleges that his right to a fair trial in Rwanda has been violated. 5.17 On 1 May 2013, the complainant added that his request for legal aid had remained unanswered despite the diplomatic assurances given by Rwanda. 5.18 On 1 and 19 November 2013, the complainant provided additional material on the denial of appropriate treatment for his psychosomatic illness and the failure to uphold his right to a fair trial. Additional comments by the State party 6.1 On 22 October 2013, the State party reiterated that the issue before the Committee was simply to determine whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant was personally at risk of torture. Since the obligation of non-refoulement assumed under article 3 of the Convention does not apply to allegations of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment or of violations of rights not covered by the Convention, such as the right of defence, it considers that the complaint is thus inadmissible ratione materiae. The State party is not under an obligation to ensure that all the rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are respected in the country of return. 15 6.2 The State party also notes that the complainant supports his arguments by citing documents that were issued after his extradition and that he complains of how he has been treated since he was returned to Rwanda. It recalls that, according to the Committee’s 14 15 GE.18-15056 Kalinichenko v. Morocco (CAT/C/47/D/428/2010), para. 15.6. The State party refers to general comment No. 31 of the Human Rights Committee on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 12). 9