CAT/C/66/D/768/2016 6.3 The complainant was extradited to Rwanda on 12 November 2016. Two members of staff from the Embassy of the Netherlands in Rwanda visited the complainant in Kigali Central Prison on 6 December 2016. During an interview conducted with the complainant during this visit, it was revealed that the Rwandan authorities were treating him properly, he was allowed to receive family visits, he had access to counsel and the proceedings against him were being monitored by the International Commission of Jurists. The complainant stated during the interview that he had been afraid of being tortured in Rwanda, but that fortunately this had not happened. On 29 March 2017, the report on the monitoring of the proceedings against the complainant that the International Commission of Jurists had carried out in November and December 2016 was sent to the Parliament of the Netherlands and published on the Government’s website, together with the monitoring agreement. The main conclusion to be drawn from this initial report was that the Rwandan authorities were complying with the procedural safeguards laid down in the monitoring agreement. On 23 May 2017, the report on the monitoring that the International Commission of Jurists had carried out in January and February 2017 was published on the same website. This report confirms the conclusion drawn from the initial report. 6.4 As concerns the admissibility of the complaint, the State party reiterates its submission that the complaint should be declared inadmissible since the complainant has failed to substantiate the claims therein for the purposes of admissibility. It refers to the two reports of the International Commission of Jurists on the monitoring that took place from November 2016 to February 2017 and the findings by the embassy’s staff, and it argues that these reports and visits show that the Rwandan authorities are treating the complainant properly and that his initial fear of being tortured or otherwise subjected to ill-treatment has proven ill-founded. The State party notes that the complainant himself informed the International Commission of Jurists that “he did not experience any aggression from the Rwandan authorities upon arrival” and that the conditions of detention “were good and the prison authorities were well prepared to receive him when he arrived”.3 The State party notes that other visits to the complainant by the International Commission of Jurists show that his conditions of detention are in accordance with the guarantees that had been agreed. 4 It submits that, for this reason alone, the complaint should be declared manifestly unfounded pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 6.5 As concerns the merits of the complaint, the State party argues that those suspected of serious crimes should, as far as possible, be prosecuted and tried in the country in which the crimes were committed. That is where the impact on the legal order is greatest and the evidence is to be found. Victims, surviving relatives, witnesses and fellow nationals must be able to see with their own eyes that justice is done and how it is done. Articles VI and VII of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide clearly express the importance of cases being tried in the country in which the offences were committed and of extradition being granted for that purpose. The State party argues that, given the need to thoroughly assess an extradition request and the importance of due care in granting extradition, various safeguards have been built into the domestic extradition procedure. The decision by the Minister of Justice to grant extradition is subjected to an objective review by the extradition chamber of The Hague District Court. This double review of an extradition request is an important safeguard in the extradition procedure, which ensures that such requests are thoroughly and objectively assessed. This is reinforced by the right to lodge an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the extradition chamber. Furthermore, civil proceedings may be instituted against the Minister’s decision to grant extradition, to assess whether the decision was reasonable. 6.6 The State party argues that the country reports on Rwanda show that there has been an overall improvement in the human rights situation over the past five years. 5 Furthermore, 3 4 5 6 Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists, “Monitoring report for the case of … monitoring period: November–December 2016”, paras. 32–33. Available at www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2017D08623&did=2017D08623. Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists, “Monitoring report for the case of … monitoring period: January–February 2017”, para. 49. The State party refers to the above-mentioned report on Rwanda by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands dated 18 August 2016.