CAT/C/66/D/771/2016 the Kigali Central Prison to Mpanga Prison. Mpanga Prison is in a remote location outside Kigali. Other genocide suspects have been transferred to Mpanga Prison only after they have been convicted. Since his move, his contact with the outside world has been reduced significantly. Telephone calls and visits are much more limited, due to the remoteness of the location. The distance to Kigali also complicates the monitoring process. The complainant therefore submits that, while he has not been exposed to any inhuman or degrading treatment yet, the risk of being exposed to such treatment in the future still exists, in particular in the light of the unpredictability of the conduct of the Rwandan authorities. State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 21 July 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint and further observations on admissibility. It notes that, on 9 July 2013, the complainant was arrested and placed in detention in connection with an investigation by the Netherlands authorities of his involvement in the Rwandan genocide. By letter of 25 September 2013, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Rwanda requested the complainant’s extradition to Rwanda. He was suspected of having committed genocide, complicity in genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, murder as a crime against humanity and war crimes, in the period from 7 April to 14 July 1994. 6.2 On 20 December 2013, the extradition chamber of The Hague District Court held that the requested extradition was permissible in respect of the charges of genocide and attempted genocide. The complainant lodged an appeal in cassation against the District Court’s judgment, which the Supreme Court of the Netherlands dismissed on 17 June 2014. By decision of 29 April 2015, the Minister of Justice and Security refused the extradition in part and permitted it in all other respects, in accordance with the judgment of the District Court. The complainant then initiated proceedings against the State before the District Court to obtain an order prohibiting the State party from extraditing him to Rwanda. On 27 November 2015, the District Court prohibited the extradition of the complainant because it considered that there was a well-founded reason for assuming that his extradition to Rwanda would lead to a breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The State lodged an appeal against this judgment before The Hague Court of Appeal. On 5 July 2016, the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the District Court on the grounds that the complainant would not be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of articles 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights if extradited to Rwanda. 6.3 The complainant was extradited to Rwanda on 12 November 2016. On 6 December 2016, two members of staff from the Embassy of the Netherlands in Rwanda visited him in Kigali Central Prison. The interview conducted with the complainant during the visit revealed that the Rwandan authorities were treating him properly, that he was allowed to receive family visits and had access to lawyers, and that the proceedings against him were being monitored by the International Commission of Jurists. The complainant stated during the interview with the embassy staff that he had been afraid of being tortured in Rwanda, but that fortunately his current situation was different from what he had feared. On 29 March 2017, the report on the monitoring of the proceedings against the complainant carried out by the International Commission of Jurists in November and December 2016 was sent to parliament and published on the central government website, together with the monitoring agreement. The main conclusion that can be drawn from the initial report is that the Rwandan authorities were complying with the procedural safeguards laid down in the monitoring agreement.2 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 central government website. The report confirms the conclusion drawn from the initial report. 6.4 The State party reiterates its submission that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claim for purposes of admissibility. It refers to the two International Commission of Jurists reports on the monitoring that took place from November 2016 to February 2017 and the findings by the staff of the Embassy of the 2 This is the conclusion drawn by the International Commission of Jurists in its letter of 29 March 2017 to the parliament of the Netherlands. 5