CAT/C/66/D/771/2016 things, they can watch television and use a computer. They also have their own kitchen. 9 If they are convicted, they are transferred to Mpanga Prison where conditions meet international standards, partly because of the Transfer Law. Eight prisoners of the Special Court for Sierra Leone have been held in a specially built wing of Mpanga Prison. 10 The special wing of Mpanga Prison also holds a prisoner extradited by Norway to Rwanda who has been sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment at first instance. He has a spacious, comfortable cell with his own washroom. 11 6.8 The State party refers to the case of Ahorugeze v. Sweden,12 in which the European Court of Human Rights found that the extradition of a genocide suspect to Rwanda would not amount to a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It noted that the authorities had offered assurances to the effect that the applicant would be detained and serve a possible prison sentence in Mpanga Prison and temporarily during his trial would be detained at the Kigali Central Prison. The Court found the two facilities met international standards and noted that there was no evidence in the case to indicate that the applicant would face a risk of torture or ill-treatment at Mpanga Prison or Kigali Central Prison. 6.9 The State party submits that, although the human rights situation in Rwanda may give some cause for concern, there is no reason to conclude that extradition to Rwanda would in itself involve a risk of contravening article 3 of the Convention or that every genocide suspect extradited to Rwanda would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 6.10 The State party argues that the complainant’s claims regarding the alleged risk he would face upon extradition have been superseded by subsequent events, a situation that alone warrants the conclusion that he does not face a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, it submits that the complainant’s claims relating to the fairness of his trial, such as there being no independent judiciary or presumption of innocence, do not fall within the scope of article 3 of the Convention, and that the rest of the complainant’s claims are not plausible given the individual circumstances of his case. The State party argues that is not clear why the complainant’s background would mark him as a political opponent in the eyes of the Rwandan authorities. It also argues that the fact that the complainant’s father was branded a traitor is no reason to assume that the Rwandan authorities will view the complainant as a political opponent; the claim is merely speculative. It further argues that the prosecution and trial of genocide suspects is very important for Rwanda and that for this reason compliance with agreed guarantees is in the State’s own interests. This is illustrated by the Rwandan authorities’ willingness to give extensive guarantees and allow far-reaching monitoring and the fact that the authorities have adhered to all the agreements made since the complainant’s extradition. Even if the Government were to attach such importance to the complainant’s political beliefs that it regarded him as a political opponent, it is highly unlikely that that would result in torture or inhuman treatment given the importance the Government attaches to prosecuting and trying offenders and the ensuing need to treat them properly. In addition, the State party argues that there are not enough concrete indications to support such a contention. 6.11 The State party submits that the complainant’s statement that he would risk being subjected to torture or ill-treatment after the finalization of the trial and monitoring must also be considered as no more than speculative. It notes that monitoring takes place at several levels. Formal monitoring is carried out by the International Commission of Jurists. In addition, under the Transfer Law the International Committee of the Red Cross or an observer appointed by the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals may monitor the complainant’s situation. It is therefore highly unlikely that the international community will not continue monitoring the complainant’s situation. Furthermore, the State party argues that the complainant’s situation is not comparable to that of other prisoners. 9 10 11 12 The State party refers to the Netherlands, “Country Report on Human Rights and Justice in Rwanda”, 18 August 2016. Ibid. Ibid. Application No. 37075/09, judgment of 27 October 2011. 7