CAT/C/66/D/771/2016 The Transfer Law is applicable during the complainant’s trial and substantial guarantees have been agreed with the Government of Rwanda. Under article 23 of the Transfer Law, any person transferred to Rwanda for trial is detained in accordance with the minimum standards of detention stipulated in the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. For individuals subject to the Transfer Law, detention is therefore not comparable to detention for other suspects. In the case of Jean Uwinkindi v. the Prosecutor, 13 the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda noted a guarantee under the Transfer Law was that any person transferred would be detained in accordance with the minimum standards of detention adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. 14 The Rwandan authorities have stated that Mpanga Prison has been designated as the primary location and that the complainant will be held temporarily in Kigali Central Prison. If it is necessary to transfer him to another prison, it will be to a facility that also meets the relevant standards. The monitoring that has taken place so far shows that the Rwandan authorities are adhering to those agreements. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 9 July 2018, the complainant provided his comments on the State party’s observations. He maintains that the communication is admissible. He notes the State party’s submission that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claim for purposes of admissibility, as the Rwandan authorities have treated him in accordance with the agreements made with the Netherlands authorities. The complainant disagrees with this assessment. He notes that he was supposed to benefit from a legal aid system that would include an investigation budget; however, no investigation budget has been made available to him yet. He has also not been allowed to contact his international counsel. The complainant concedes that he has not, as of yet, been subjected to physical torture or inhumane treatment. However, he claims that he has a legitimate fear of such treatment as a perceived political opponent and due to the widespread use of torture in Rwanda. 7.2 The complainant notes the State party’s argument that the human rights situation in Rwanda has improved over the past few years. However, he argues that recent human rights reports show a different picture, and that the Rwandan military has routinely unlawfully detained and tortured detainees, submitting them to beatings, asphyxiations, mock executions and electric shocks.15 Complaints about torture under such circumstances have not been investigated and evidence obtained under torture has not been excluded at trial. 16 Furthermore, the complainant notes that the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment postponed its monitoring mission to Rwanda on 20 October 2017 because the Government refused to cooperate and severely limited the Committee’s access to prisoners. He argues that country reports thus demonstrate that the persecution of perceived political opponents of the Government is a continuing reality and that there is real and imminent risk that he will be exposed to torture or other inhumane or degrading treatment. He also argues that, while there is some level of scrutiny and monitoring of his situation, his situation will change when the monitoring stops. 7.3 The complainant notes that the monitoring reports issued by the International Commission of Jurists are general and do not provide any analysis, conclusions or recommendations about his case. In addition, they are published irregularly, sometimes with gaps of six months. The reports include very few details on his treatment, the visitors he is allowed to receive and the possibility to send and receive mail. In addition, there appears to be no transparency in the manner in which the monitoring system is functioning. There is no concrete workplan or schedule in the agreement between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and the International Commission of Jurists. Moreover, 13 14 15 16 8 The State party refers to the extradition request from Rwanda to the Netherlands authorities. Case No. ICTR-01-75-AR11bis, decision of 16 December 2011, para. 37. The complainant refers to Human Rights Watch, “‘We will force you to confess’: torture and unlawful military detention in Rwanda”, 10 October 2017. Ibid. and United States, Department of State, 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Rwanda.