CAT/C/66/D/771/2016 Netherlands and argues that the reports and visits show that the Government of Rwanda is treating the complainant properly and that his initial fear of being tortured or otherwise treated inhumanely has in fact proved to be ill-founded. It was also found that the special prison block where he was being held was clean and well ordered. The complainant himself informed the International Commission of Jurists that “he was okay with the conditions” in the detention facilities and that “all was good” concerning his visitation rights and living conditions at the detention facilities. The State party submits that for that reason alone, the complaint should be declared manifestly unfounded pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 6.5 Regarding 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 where the crimes were committed. That is where the impact on the legal order is the greatest and where 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 where 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 of the Minister of Justice and Security to grant extradition is subjected to an objective review by the extradition chamber of The Hague District Court. The double review of an extradition request is an important safeguard in the extradition procedure, which ensures that extradition 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 submits that the country reports on Rwanda show that there has been an overall improvement in the human rights situation over the past five years. 3 In addition, it notes that according to non-governmental organizations the main human rights problems from 2011 to 2016 concerned the harassment, arrest and mistreatment of journalists, political opponents and human rights defenders. 4 Most of the human rights issues concerned civil and political rights; freedom of expression in particular was restricted and there was little scope for criticizing the Government. 6.7 The State party notes that according to country reports those found guilty of genocide are not treated differently from other citizens. There have been cases where those convicted of genocide were afraid to return to their village communities after being released. They were given assistance by government officials. The Government of Rwanda ensures that people do not take revenge, and there have not been many incidents. 5 It also notes that according to country reports there has been an overall improvement of the situation in Rwandan prisons. The prison system was designed for 54,700 detainees. At the end of 2012 the prison population was 55,618, but by 2015 it had fallen to around 54,000. 6 According to the Rwandan Correctional Service, every prison has dormitories, toilets, sports facilities, a clinic, a reception room, a kitchen, water and electricity. 7 A special regime applies to transfer cases such as the complainant’s case. During their trial, “international” defendants accused of genocide stay in a special, comfortable, high-security wing of Kigali Central Prison.8 In July 2015, five prisoners were housed in this high-security wing. Among other 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 The State party refers to the Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Country Report on Human Rights and Justice in Rwanda”, 18 August 2016. United States of America, Department of State, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015: Rwanda”. The State party refers to the Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Country Report on Rwanda”, 28 November 2011. United States, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015: Rwanda”. United States, Department of State, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014: Rwanda”. Ibid.