CAT/C/63/D/488/2012 aside the interlocutory injunction. Also on 23 January, the complainant lodged another petition for an interlocutory injunction with the Federal Court of Canada. That petition was rejected on the same day that it was filed, and the complainant was sent back to Rwanda that same day as well. On 3 April, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the author’s petition for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Minister’s delegate, thus confirming the decision of the Federal Court of Canada of 11 January. 4.11 The complainant arrived in Rwanda in January 2012. According to articles published in the press, the complainant was arrested upon his arrival and held in Kigali prison. The complainant’s arrest and detention alone do not, however, amount to torture and are insufficient reason in and of themselves to find a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, at the time of the submission of the State party’s observations to the Committee, the complainant had already met with his lawyers and contacted his family members in Canada; he had appeared before the Court more than once and had been granted a two-month period in which to prepare his defence. In March 2012, he asked the Court to conduct his trial in French, claiming that, inter alia, it would benefit his Canadian defence lawyers, but his request was not granted. In May 2012, he petitioned for an adjournment of his trial, citing health problems. The State party contends that, since the complainant is a high-profile figure who attracts intense media attention, the Rwandan authorities will take particular care to ensure that his rights are respected and that any violations thereof would quickly become public knowledge. 4.12 The State party is of the view that the complaint before the Committee contains no new claims or evidence to support the conclusion that the complainant would be exposed to a real and personal risk of torture upon his return, nor does it establish that the decisions of the Canadian authorities were in any way flawed. Thus, the State party invites the Committee to re-evaluate the findings of the Canadian authorities and assess whether their decisions were flawed in some way. 4.13 With regard to the subject of admissibility, the State party argues that the complaint is in part incompatible with the Convention, since the complainant is also claiming violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Furthermore, even if the alleged risks having to do with shortcomings in the Rwandan judicial process, lack of protection for witnesses, lack of judicial independence and prison conditions actually existed in Rwanda, which the State party denies, they would not constitute acts of torture, as the mere fact that a person is arrested or held in custody does not in itself constitute an act of torture within the meaning of the Convention. 4.14 As for the complainant’s claim that he would be at risk of torture in Rwanda, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, the State party notes that he talks about the general situation that seems to prevail in Rwanda and about specific past cases that, in his view, amount to torture. However, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, a demonstration of the existence of human rights violations does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a risk of torture exists. Contrary to the complainant’s claims, torture is not endemic in Rwanda, and he has not demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that he would run a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture in Rwanda. The State party therefore is of the view that the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegations. As for the complainant’s claim that he is at risk of being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, it is to be noted that the obligation of non-refoulement set forth under article 3 of the Convention does not apply in the present case. 4.15 In the event that the Committee finds the complaint to be admissible, the State party contends that it should be rejected on the merits. The Minister’s delegate undertook a thorough, detailed analysis of the risks that the complainant might run if he were returned to Rwanda. In addition to the observations and evidence submitted by the complainant, the delegate examined recent reports on the situation in Rwanda. The State party asserts that the documentation provided by the complainant in support of his claims does not relate to the current situation in Rwanda, which has improved considerably. The complainant fails to show how the documents that he has submitted demonstrate that he is personally at risk of torture. GE.18-15056 5