CAT/C/63/D/488/2012 the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Diplomatic assurances from Rwanda are unreliable, particularly since there is no monitoring mechanism in place. The complainant states that no one from the State party accompanied him to his place of detention, visited him or attended his hearings, in violation of the diplomatic assurances that were received. He adds that the Committee has admonished the State party for its failure to institute interim measures. 18 He is of the view that, in deporting him, the State party acted in bad faith. 7.3 The complainant contends that, in the light of the Committee’s concluding observations on Rwanda, the human rights situation remains a cause of concern. 19 With the exception of Sweden, which agreed to extradite a person in 2009, no country has extradited persons suspected of having participated in the genocide to Rwanda because of concerns about the possibility of having a fair trial in that country. 20 The complainant then repeats his allegations of a violation of his right to a fair trial and contends that the refusal of the High Court of Rwanda to have his indictment translated into English and French for his lawyers prevented him from mounting a proper defence. He underscores the absence of legal aid and the failure to meet his medical and nutritional needs, in violation of the diplomatic assurances that were given. Additional comments by the State party 8.1 On 19 October 2016, the State party reiterated its previous submissions. It adds that the complainant’s submission of 16 May 2016 does not contain any new claim or evidence that would support the conclusion that he was exposed to a real and personal risk of torture in Rwanda at the time of his deportation. The complainant has not succeeded in proving that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to torture. 8.2 The State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae and by virtue of the failure to substantiate claims of a risk of torture in Rwanda. The Committee reiterates that the Minister’s delegate followed the procedure established by law for assessing the risk of torture on the basis of the criteria set out in the Convention and, in so doing, considered both the general human rights situation in Rwanda, which has improved considerably since 2004, and the applicant’s personal situation. His analysis was confirmed by the higher courts. The fact that the authorities reached a different conclusion from that of the applicant does not render their decisions unreasonable. Despite the absence of a risk of torture, the State party obtained diplomatic assurances as a precautionary measure, which the Federal Court deemed sufficient to rule out any risk of torture. It was reasonable to accept those assurances following a full, detailed and thorough review of the specific circumstances of the complainant and the documentary evidence, all of which formed part of a fair process, and taking into account the commitment of Rwanda to abide by those assurances and the importance it attaches to maintaining good relations with Canada. In his comments of 16 May 2016, the complainant continues to assert simply that there was a possibility of a risk of torture, whereas the risk assessment was based on the information of which the State party was aware or could have been expected to be aware. The complainant has not provided the Committee with any evidence concerning his treatment since his arrival in Rwanda that might lead to the conclusion that the State party actually knew, or could have deduced, that there was a risk of torture at the time of his expulsion. The complainant’s comments do not alter the outcome of the risk assessment made by the authorities at the time in question. 8.3 The State party is of the view that the complainant has not substantiated his allegations, which are, moreover, immaterial inasmuch as the decision of the Minister’s delegate was based on all the evidence that was relevant to the assessment of the risk of torture. The complainant has not demonstrated the existence of a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture in Rwanda. Nor has he demonstrated that his claims of a violation of his right to a fair trial and defence entail suffering of a sufficiently severe nature to be regarded as amounting to torture. The ill-treatment to which he alleges he has 18 19 20 GE.18-15056 CAT/C/CAN/CO/6/, para. 10. CAT/C/RWA/CO/1, paras. 4–7. Amnesty International, Amnesty International 2011: The State of the World’s Human Rights, p. 294. 11