CAT/C/59/D/697/2015 for Migration, the complainant and the members of his family were informed that they would probably be transferred to Belgium and were invited to cite any obstacles to such a transfer. The complainant then stated spontaneously that he was opposed to the transfer because perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide were present in Belgium. He made no mention of the additional grounds that he raised later in the proceedings. For her part, his wife stated that many Rwandans were living in Belgium and that they held assemblies and demonstrations there and that she wished to live in peace and have no further involvement in politics. 4.6 According to the State party, the complainant also referred to several groups of people who were likely to have a grudge against him — persons involved in the genocide, opponents of the regime and members of the regime — but he did not provide any details of why such persons would wish to do him harm. Furthermore, nothing in the complainant’s statements or his written submissions indicates that he experienced any problems during previous visits to Belgium or faced any serious threats when there. In the State party’s view, the complainant has not sufficiently substantiated the claim that he and his family may be subjected to acts of violence for article 3 of the Convention to become applicable. The mere fact that Rwandan nationals have been killed in Brussels in the past, as the complainant asserts, cannot establish that the complainant and his family are themselves also in danger, bearing in mind that the deaths of those individuals, with whom moreover they do not claim to have had any form of relationship, occurred several years ago. 4.7 The State party adds that Belgium is a State governed by the rule of law, with law enforcement agencies at its disposal that are able and ready to afford protection to persons in its territory. Accordingly, if the complainant and his family were to feel threatened in any way in Belgium, they should apply to the Belgian authorities for protection. It has not been shown that the authorities would not be able or ready to protect the complainant and his family if they were threatened. According to the State party, the news report referred to by the complainant (see para. 3.2 above) confirms that, in the event of the complainant and his family being threatened, the Belgian authorities would be willing and able to provide them with appropriate protection. The State party adds that no police force is able to ensure full and continued protection. Neither the geographical situation of Switzerland, nor its distance from Belgium, nor the fact that there are relatively few Rwandan nationals in Switzerland ensure that the complainant and his family would enjoy greater safety in Switzerland than in Belgium. In view of the complainant’s former position in Rwanda, it is difficult to imagine that he would be able to hide from the Rwandan authorities for long. The complainant would probably continue to experience some level of risk, and there are grounds for believing that it would not be very difficult for his alleged enemies to find him in Switzerland, if they so wished. The State party concludes that the complainant has failed to show that he and his family would run a personal, real and serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention if deported to Belgium. 4.8 With respect to the claim that the complainant and his family would risk being deported by Belgium to Rwanda, the State party submits that there is nothing to suggest that the Belgian authorities would not, as appropriate, give proper consideration to their asylum application, in accordance with the State party’s laws and the applicable international conventions. In particular, the fact that the Belgian ambassadors to Ethiopia and Rwanda are angry with the complainant for using the visas that he had been granted to file an asylum request in Switzerland cannot alter this conclusion. It is hard to imagine that, if the Belgian authorities were to consider a request for protection by the complainant to be well founded, they would object to his having used a properly issued visa for reasons of safety. 4.9 According to the State party, the complainant claims for the first time in his submission to the Committee that he is subject to an arrest warrant issued through GE.17-01261 5