CAT/C/84/D/1103/2021

GE.26-06270 (E) 290526 010626

Committee against Torture

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the

Convention, concerning communication No. 1103/2021*, **

Communication submitted by:

X (represented by counsel, Jarinde Temminck

Tuinstra and Caroline Buisman)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State Party:

Kingdom of the Netherlands

Date of complaint:

18 May 2021 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 115 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 15 November 2021 (not issued

in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

17 April 2026

Subject matter:

Extradition to Rwanda

Procedural issues:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies; level of

substantiation of claims

Substantive issue:

Risk of torture upon return to country of origin

(non-refoulement)

Article of the Convention:

3

1.1

The complainant is a national of Rwanda born in 1949. He claims that the State Party

would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention if it removed him to Rwanda. The

State Party has made the declaration pursuant to article 22 (1) of the Convention, effective

from 21 December 1988. The complainant is represented by counsel.

1.2

On 15 November 2021, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new

complaints and interim measures, decided not to issue a request for interim measures under

rule 114 of the Committee’s rules of procedure.

Factual background

2.1

The complainant fled Rwanda during the 1994 genocide. He made his way to the

Kingdom of the Netherlands after several years in Kenya1 and applied for asylum in 2000.

The application was denied because of his alleged involvement in the Rwandan genocide. He

denied the allegations, but the decision to reject his application was upheld on appeal. His

* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-fourth session (13 April–1 May 2026).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Jorge Contesse, Lorena González Pinto, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu

Huawen, Maeda Naoko, Moulaye Abdallah Moulaye Abdallah, Ana Racu and Abderrazak Rouwane.

1 No further details were provided.

United Nations

CAT/C/84/D/1103/2021

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

1 June 2026

Original: English

CAT/C/84/D/1103/2021

2

GE.26-06270

two applications for reconsideration were rejected. His wife and four children – who arrived

before the complainant – were granted asylum in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and became

Dutch citizens. Although the complainant was ordered to leave the Kingdom of the

Netherlands in 2012, it was determined that he would not be expelled in view of his state of

health: he had been diagnosed with HIV in 2003, and the Office of Medical Advice of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service issued various advisory opinions that the necessary

medical care was not available in Rwanda.2 The complainant was also allegedly involved in

supporting the Rwandan opposition.3

2.2

On 9 April 2010, the Rwandan authorities requested the complainant’s extradition for

criminal prosecution for genocide and complicity in genocide and crimes against humanity

committed between April and July 1994. On 1 November 2017, the Minister of Justice and

Security wrote to the Rwandan authorities to inform them about the extradition procedure in

the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which had been postponed because immigration

proceedings were still pending. The Minister drew attention to the complainant’s medical

situation and requested guarantees that the complainant would receive the medical care he

needed during his detention. The letter concluded by noting that if Rwanda could not ensure

that adequate care could be provided to address the complainant’s health issues, the

extradition procedure could not be started.

2.3

On 12 December 2017, the Rwandan authorities responded, guaranteeing that if the

complainant were to be extradited, he would receive high-quality HIV treatment meeting

international standards. On 21 March 2018, the Rwandan authorities sent a further response,

detailing the availability in Rwanda of four specific medicines. The Rwandan authorities

confirmed that all the antiretroviral drugs approved by the World Health Organization were

available in Rwanda through the routine supply chain system managed by the Medical

Production and Procurement Division and that four specific medicines – nepafenac, Truvada,

emtricitabine and maraviroc – were in stock.

2.4

On 31 May 2018, the Minister of Justice and Security of the Kingdom of the

Netherlands requested the Rwandan authorities to renew or confirm the original request of

2010 for the complainant’s extradition. The Rwandan authorities were asked to include more

specific assurances, including a confirmation of their existing guarantee that, were the

complainant to be extradited to Rwanda, he would receive, when detained in Rwanda, the

necessary HIV treatment and medication – specifically the antiretroviral drugs – that he was

receiving at that time in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

2.5

On 1 August 2018, the Rwandan authorities submitted a renewed request for the

complainant’s extradition for criminal prosecution, including a guarantee that the specific

medical treatment that he was receiving in the Kingdom of the Netherlands would be

available in Rwanda and that he would receive high-quality healthcare meeting

internationally recognized standards. On 19 March 2019, the complainant was arrested for

the purpose of extradition. He challenged the extradition, arguing that it would violate his

rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

(European Convention on Human Rights). On 23 May 2019, the Hague District Court held

that the extradition would not violate the European Convention on Human Rights and

recommended that it be ensured that he receive adequate medical care in Rwanda.

2 Issued on 31 May 2010, 8 July 2010, 14 October 2010, 25 June 2012, 31 March 2014, 10 February

2015, 18 January 2016, 22 December 2016, 2 March 2018, 4 January 2019 and 23 March 2020.

3 The complainant refers to an Internet blog dated 6 May 2010, in which he was identified as a member

of the opposition.

CAT/C/84/D/1103/2021

GE.26-06270

3

2.6

On 27 August 2019, the Rwandan authorities were informed of the decision of the

Hague District Court and were requested to provide further guarantees regarding the

availability of specific medical care in Rwanda. Namely, the Rwandan authorities were asked

to provide information regarding the availability of certain medicines: maraviroc,

emtricitabine, ritonavir and atazanavir. On 23 October 2019, the Rwandan authorities gave

assurances and additional guarantees that were the complainant to be extradited to Rwanda,

he would receive – free of charge – the necessary medication as listed in the request dated

27 August 2019. In their letter, the Rwandan authorities reiterated the assurance concerning

the availability in Rwanda of all types of antiretroviral therapy approved by the World Health

Organization.

2.7

The complainant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court against the

judgment of the Hague District Court, which was dismissed on 28 February 2020. On 28

April 2020, the Minister of Justice and Security of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

authorized the extradition of the complainant. The complainant challenged the Minister’s

decision in court; the decision was upheld by the Hague District Court and the Hague Court

of Appeal on 23 December 2020 and 4 May 2021, respectively. The courts found that the

complainant would be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Rwandan transfer law,

which had been adopted specifically for the treatment of suspects who were extradited to

Rwanda from abroad and which incorporated a broad variety of guarantees. In addition, the

courts noted that Rwanda had issued a specific guarantee that the complainant would be

provided with adequate medical care in Rwanda and that his case would be monitored by the

Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists; in the event of any violation of

the guarantees, the Kenyan Section could contact the Dutch authorities, which in turn could

directly contact the Rwandan authorities to remind them of the guarantees that had been

provided.

2.8

In particular, the Court of Appeal noted that Rwanda had given sufficient, specific

and clear guarantees in the extradition request that: both the facility in which the complainant

would be detained, and the medical treatment that he would receive, would comply with

international standards; that he would receive a fair trial; and that he had a right to appeal that

included a full assessment of his rights and the facts. Regarding access to medical care, the

Court pointed out that annual reports of the World Health Organization showed that the

correct HIV treatment was generally available free of charge in Rwanda, including in prisons.

The Court considered the monitoring reports concerning two persons previously extradited

by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Rwanda under the Rwandan transfer law, according to

which there was no evidence that their medical care had been deficient. The Court noted that

the Minister of Health of Rwanda had provided detailed information on the nature,

availability and free provision of the four different drugs the complainant needed and had

also explicitly stated that the complainant would receive free HIV medication appropriate for

his medical condition. It found that the guarantees carried greater weight than the opinion of

the Office of Medical Advice, as the guarantees were given specifically in regard to the

conditions of detention for the complainant after his extradition, while the opinions of the

Office concerned the situation in Rwanda more generally. Moreover, the guarantees, by their

very nature, provided assurances for the complainant, while the Office had no assurances on

which to base its advisory opinion.

2.9

Lastly, the Court of Appeal considered that the complainant had not produced

sufficient facts or circumstances to establish a real risk of a violation of due process owing

to his involvement with the opposition. It noted that the complainant was not a prominent

person, had not carried out any political activities and – according to his own declarations –

had never been a member of any political party. The complainant did not lodge an appeal in

cassation.

2.10

On 26 July 2021, the complainant was extradited to Rwanda.

Complaint

3.1

The complainant submits that, if returned to Rwanda, he faces a real risk of being

subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. He will be exposed to ill-

treatment and a lack of adequate medical care, likely resulting in his imminent death due to

his health condition. He is 71 years old and terminally ill. For six years, the State Party

CAT/C/84/D/1103/2021

4

GE.26-06270

authorities took the position that he could not be removed to Rwanda because the

antiretroviral drugs used for HIV treatment and prevention – maraviroc, emtricitabine and

Truvada – were not available in Rwanda. However, the State Party is no longer following the

medical advice of its own Office of Medical Advice.

3.2

The complainant notes that the State Party’s authorities relied on a guarantee from the

Ministry of Health of Rwanda that he would receive the required treatment and medication.

However, he argues that this guarantee lacks any specificity about the actual availability of

the necessary medical treatment and medication and that the State Party’s authorities have

accepted that all types of antiretroviral treatment, as approved by the World Health

Organization in July 2019, are available in Rwanda and have been provided free of charge

since 2007.

3.3

The complainant argues that the guarantee of medical care from Rwanda is not

reliable. He refers to the case of a person extradited from Canada to Rwanda who suffered a

series of human rights violations, including inadequate access to medical care.4 In the view

of the complainant, if Rwanda violated the guarantees given to Canada, there is no reason to

believe that it will not also violate the guarantees given to the State Party.

3.4

The complainant contends that the risk of ill-treatment is accentuated by the fact that

while in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, he has been linked to the Rwandan opposition.

Detention, torture, ill-treatment, disappearances and extrajudicial executions of political

opponents are common in Rwanda.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

In observations dated 7 June 2022, the State Party challenges the admissibility of the

complaint for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, because the complainant did not lodge

an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hague Court of

Appeal of 4 May 2021.

4.2

On the merits, the State Party refers to two decisions in which the Committee found

that the extradition to Rwanda of individuals suspected of genocide was not contrary to article

3 of the Convention, and in which guarantees were also given by Rwanda to the State Party.5

It does not dispute that the complainant’s state of health is such that losing access to the

proper medical care – particularly his antiretroviral medications – could result in a medical

emergency. However, it considers that the guarantees regarding access to medical care,

particularly in combination with the monitoring that will take place, which provides an extra

safeguard, will ensure that this scenario will not occur. In that connection, it informs the

Committee that the monitoring reports by the Kenyan Section of the International

Commission of Jurists regarding the two previous cases provide no indication of any

violation of the guarantees or more generally of the rights of either person. This shows that

Rwanda has a track record of abiding by similar assurances. In the State Party’s view, there

is therefore no reason to doubt that Rwanda will comply with the guarantees it has provided.

4.3

Given that the complainant has already been extradited, the State Party provides the

Committee with information from the monitoring reports. The monitoring report covering

July to September 2021 states that the complainant informed the monitor6 that he was doing

well with respect to his health, as he still had his medication. The monitoring report covering

October to December 2021 shows that the complainant reiterated that one of the medicines

he was using while he was in the Kingdom of the Netherlands was not available and that only

a generic version of that medicine was available. He added that a doctor had told him that he

would be observed to see if his health was affected by the fact that he was not taking the

medicine that was not available.

4 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Mugesera v. Republic of Rwanda, Application

No. 12/2017, Judgment, 27 November 2020.

5 J.M. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/66/D/768/2016), para. 10.7; and J.I. v. Netherlands

(CAT/C/66/D/771/2016), para. 10.7.

6 The person from the Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists responsible for

monitoring the complainant’s situation.

CAT/C/84/D/1103/2021

GE.26-06270

5

4.4

Lastly, the State Party submits that the complainant has not presented any concrete

information that would substantiate his claim of being at risk of treatment contrary to article 3

of the Convention owing to ties with the Rwandan opposition. He gives only an overview of

general information about difficulties encountered in Rwanda by opponents of the regime

and claims that he participated in demonstrations supporting the opposition. The State Party

concludes that it has not been satisfactorily established that the complainant has been or will

be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention following his extradition to

Rwanda.

Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the

merits

5.1

On 3 April 2025, the complainant submitted comments on the State Party’s

observations. Regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, he explains that in a letter

dated 27 May 2021, his cassation lawyer7 advised him against lodging an appeal in cassation

because he had been informed by the State Advocate in an email message dated 5 May 2021

that the complainant’s extradition, which had already been initiated, was to be completed in

around two weeks and that it would not be delayed pending the decision of the Supreme

Court in cassation. The complainant submits that given the short period in which his

extradition was scheduled to take place, there was no realistic possibility to successfully file

an appeal in cassation and receive an answer from the Supreme Court. He believes that the

Supreme Court would have immediately rejected his appeal for lack of procedural interest.

Even an abbreviated procedure would have taken longer than the time remaining before his

extradition.

5.2

The complainant declares that the guarantees from Rwanda as to the availability of

specific medication to treat his HIV were not fulfilled, because the medication that the Office

of Medical Advice had stated would not be available in Rwanda was indeed not available.

To date it has not been made available to him. This has been reported, but to no avail. He

thus declares that he is being exposed to ill-treatment and a lack of adequate medical care

that could result in his imminent death.

5.3

The complainant invokes a recent country-of-origin information report that describes

the situation with regard to human rights and the rule of law in Rwanda, in particular insofar

as this is relevant to the treatment and possible return of persons who were or may have been

involved in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.8 In his view, had his case been considered a few

years later, he would not have been extradited, owing to the unreliability of the guarantees

provided by the Rwandan authorities.

State Party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits

6.1

On 7 October 2025, the State Party provided further observations. With regard to the

exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State Party insists that an appeal in cassation could have

provided effective relief. It cannot be said in advance, in general terms, that following

extradition an appellant would be assumed to have manifestly insufficient interest in the case.

There is case law in which the Supreme Court ruled on the merits of an appeal in cassation

after the actual extradition had taken place. Moreover, a lack of interest in an appeal in

cassation does not automatically mean that the Supreme Court will find that appeal

inadmissible. The State Party adds that a negative recommendation from an appellate lawyer

does not create a procedural barrier to lodging an appeal in cassation. The complainant was

free to seek another appellate lawyer to take his case.

6.2

On the merits, the State Party submits that after the complainant’s extradition to

Rwanda, the State Party was informed by means of the monitoring reports prepared by the

Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists that the complainant was not

receiving the same medication that he had used in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and that

7 The complainant explains that few lawyers admitted to the bar are allowed to submit cases before the

Supreme Court of the Netherlands; he could not file an appeal in cassation by himself.

8 See https://www.government.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2023/06/30/country-

of-origin-information-report-on-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law-in-rwanda/country-of-origin-

information-report-on-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law-in-rwanda.pdf.

CAT/C/84/D/1103/2021

6

GE.26-06270

Rwanda had guaranteed would be available to him. The State Party immediately asked the

Rwandan authorities for clarification, first by making enquiries through the Kenyan Section

of the International Commission of Jurists and then directly. Through diplomatic contacts,

the State Party was informed that the complainant’s medical treatment had indeed been

changed. This change had taken place following a decision by the complainant’s attending

physician in Rwanda. The physician had prescribed different medication for the complainant,

on the basis of his professional assessment and in line with World Health Organization

recommendations. The complainant was monitored in order to ascertain whether the new

medication would take effect and to ensure that it did not have any negative effects on his

health, after which the attending physician allowed the treatment he had prescribed to

continue. To date, the complainant has been receiving this medication and other medical care,

such as regular check-ups at a healthcare institution with relevant expertise.

6.3

The State Party contends that the complainant’s assertions that the monitoring reports

did not lead to a solution, that no action was taken on the basis of the monitoring reports and

that he was not receiving the appropriate medical care are therefore incorrect. On the basis

of the monitoring conducted by the Kenyan Section of the International Commission of

Jurists and the periodic visits paid by the diplomatic mission of the Kingdom of the

Netherlands in Kigali to the complainant – although it is not under any obligation to do so –

the State Party is kept informed of the complainant’s situation, medical and otherwise, and

these reports are also shared with the complainant. In the State Party’s opinion, it has been

demonstrated that the State Party is capable of remaining informed of any changes in the

complainant’s situation and of raising any such changes with the Rwandan authorities if

necessary.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

7.1

Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must

decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has

ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same

matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international

investigation or settlement.

7.2

In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not

consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual

has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that the State Party argues that the

complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies because he has not submitted

an appeal in cassation. The Committee also infers from the complainant’s argument that this

remedy does not have suspensive effect. The State Party has not indicated whether an appeal

in cassation has suspensive effect. The Committee recalls that the suspensive effect of a

remedy is one of the essential procedural guarantees in expulsion proceedings, since

suspension is intended to prevent possible violations of the principle of non-refoulement and

thus to ensure the full implementation of article 3 of the Convention.9 Therefore, since an

appeal in cassation in the complainant’s case did not have suspensive effect, the Committee

concludes that this remedy is not effective and even less useful in his case. In the

circumstances of the present case, the Committee finds that article 22 (5) (b) of the

Convention does not preclude it from declaring the communication admissible.

7.3

The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the evidence produced has

already been examined by the domestic authorities. The Committee recalls that it is for the

organs of the States Parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the

facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which

such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of

justice.10 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by

9 General comment No. 4 (2017), paras. 13 and 18 (e).

10 G.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/30/D/219/2002), para. 6.12; S.K. v. Australia (CAT/C/73/D/968/2019),

para. 12.5; and Z.S. v. Georgia (CAT/C/70/D/915/2019), para. 7.4.

CAT/C/84/D/1103/2021

GE.26-06270

7

organs of the State Party concerned;11 however, it is not bound by such findings. It follows

that the Committee will make a free assessment of the information available to it in

accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances

relevant to each case.12

7.4

In the present case, the Committee observes that the State Party’s immigration and

judicial authorities thoroughly examined the facts and evidence presented by the complainant

and considered that the specific and targeted guarantees given by Rwanda for the availability

of internationally recognized AIDS treatment for the complainant prevailed over a general

opinion of the Office of Medical Advice, which lacked any specific assurances. These

guarantees were specifically requested by the State Party authorities, in view of the

complainant’s specific situation, and when received, they had no reason to distrust them. The

Committee notes that following his extradition, the complainant continues to benefit from

AIDS treatment in line with World Health Organization recommendations.

7.5

The Committee also notes that the complainant contests the State Party’s assessment

of evidence regarding his access to AIDS treatment and the risk of ill-treatment because he

belongs to the opposition. However, the Committee notes that the complainant has not

provided evidence to substantiate these allegations. It further observes that, following a

thorough assessment of all the facts and submissions at the various levels of jurisdiction, the

authorities of the State Party likewise concluded that he had failed to demonstrate that the

guarantees provided by Rwanda would prevent him from receiving appropriate treatment for

AIDS or that he faced a real risk of ill-treatment on account of his alleged opposition

affiliation. Therefore, the Committee finds that the complainant has not established that the

State Party’s evaluation of the facts and evidence concerning his alleged risk of treatment

contrary to the Convention upon return to Rwanda suffered from any defects.13

7.6

The Committee recalls its earlier decisions in which it found claims to be manifestly

unfounded where the author of a communication had failed to submit substantiated arguments

showing that the danger of being subjected to torture was foreseeable, personal, present and

real. The Committee also recalls that, for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the

Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must not be manifestly unfounded.14

In the light of the above, and in the absence of any further relevant information, the

Committee finds that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claims sufficiently for the

purposes of admissibility.15

8.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention;

(b)

That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the

State Party.

11 See, for example, T.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/46/D/375/2009), para. 7.7; and Alp v. Denmark

(CAT/C/52/D/466/2011), para. 8.3.

12 See, for example, I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.4. See also general comment

No. 4 (2017), para. 50.

13 S.K. v. Australia, para. 12.5.

14 See, for example, Z v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013), para. 6.3; and K.A. et al. v. Sweden

(CAT/C/39/D/308/2006), para. 7.2.

15 S.K. v. Australia, para. 12.6.