Opinion; Subjects: RWANDA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.19-09606(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its eighty-fourth session, 24 April–3 May 2019
Opinion No. 24/2019 concerning Diane Shima Rwigara and Adeline
Rwigara (Rwanda)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s
mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and
Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed that mandate and most
recently extended it for a three-year period in its resolution 33/30 of 30 September 2016.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 2 November 2018 the
Working Group transmitted to the Government of Rwanda a communication concerning
Diane Shima Rwigara and Adeline Rwigara. The Government replied to the
communication on 8 January 2019.
3.
The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
4.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
General Assembly
Distr.: General
13 June 2019
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
2
Submissions
Communication from the source
5.
Diane Shima Rwigara, 36 years old, is a Rwandan national. She is the daughter of
Adeline Rwigara and of a man who was one of the wealthiest businessmen in Rwanda
before his death in 2015. Ms. Rwigara is a businesswoman who has also helped to lead her
family’s real estate business. She ran for president of Rwanda in 2017 before she was
disqualified and subsequently arrested. Her usual place of residence is Kigali.
6.
Adeline Rwigara, 58 years old, is a Rwandan national. She is a widow and has four
children. She is a businesswoman who has also helped to lead her family’s real estate
business. Her usual place of residence is Kigali.
Context
7.
The source explains that the late husband and father of the two above-mentioned
individuals was a Rwandan businessman, a Tutsi entrepreneur who built a fortune in
industry and real estate and who backed the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) during its
campaign to end the genocide of 1994. He was once an ally of the current President, but
became the subject of government scrutiny in 2007 when reports linked him with certain
opponents of the President. Subsequently, in February 2015, he was killed in a roadside
accident in Kigali. According to the source, the police claimed that he was killed when his
car was hit by a truck, and refused to conduct an investigation, even though the evidence
suggested that he had been murdered, probably for political reasons.
8.
The source submits that, in late 2016, Diane Rwigara emerged as one of the most
prominent critics of the authorities in place, commenting on issues of poverty, lack of due
process, and restrictions on freedom of expression. In May 2017, Ms. Rwigara announced
her intention to run in the presidential election. She was immediately subjected to a
campaign of harassment and intimidation; for example, two days after she announced her
campaign, digitally altered intimate photographs of her appeared online, for which Ms.
Rwigara and others believe the Government is responsible. In the following weeks, her
supporters faced harassment and intimidation while collecting the signatures necessary to
qualify her for the presidential ballot.
9.
The source reports that, in July 2017, the Government announced that Diane
Rwigara has been barred from appearing on the ballot because she had allegedly failed to
submit sufficient signatures to qualify, despite the fact that she had submitted nearly twice
the number required. The following week, the Government raided the offices of the
company owned by the Rwigara family, the Premier Tobacco Co., ordered the closure of its
factory, and requested the payment of more than approximately $7 million in back taxes,
despite presenting no evidence of the alleged debt.
10.
The source recalls that, on 5 August 2017, the current President was elected to a
third term in office (after having successfully campaigned in 2015 to lift the term limits laid
down by the Constitution), allegedly garnering more than 98 per cent of the vote.
11.
The source also alleges that, since the President was elected in 2003, his
administration has achieved socioeconomic gains but has failed to guarantee civil liberties
for the general public, routinely silencing opposition in the media, politics and civil society.
Arrest and detention
12.
The source submits that, on 29 August 2017, a group of police officers and members
of the Presidential Guard raided and ransacked the Rwigara compound in Kigali. The
actions of the police officers were violent, resulting in the breaking of Adeline Rwigara’s
leg and back. They searched the home for several hours, ultimately confiscating money,
jewellery, telephones, computers and documents. They did not provide any reason for the
raid, nor did they present any official documents. Over the following weeks, it was
announced that Diane Rwigara was being investigated for allegedly forging voters’
signatures, and that her family was facing charges relating to tax evasion. The police held
Diane and Adeline Rwigara, as well as another family member, under house arrest.
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
3
13.
The source reports that Diane and Adeline Rwigara, and a family member, faced
prolonged interrogation, as the police interrogated them most days for approximately 16
hours, without food. They spent the first three days of their house arrest handcuffed. They
were not allowed to speak with their lawyers over the following three weeks, even after
Diane Rwigara requested to have her counsel present during the interrogations. Meanwhile,
the President publicly accused Diane Rwigara and her family of misconduct and threatened
in one speech by saying that “even if you have been or wanted to become President of the
country, you are not immune from prosecution. Those who are listening had better be
hearing me.”
14.
According to the source, on 23 September 2017, the police force formally arrested
Diane and Adeline Rwigara, and a family member. That month, their family businesses and
personal bank accounts were closed and their money confiscated. They spent the first five
days after the arrest in solitary confinement, where they were denied visits, deprived of
food and medicine, and often held in handcuffs. They were also denied access to legal
counsel for the first seven days of their detention, in violation of Rwandan law. When
prosecutors finally announced the charges against them, they did not include tax evasion;
rather, Diane Rwigara was charged with forgery, while Adeline Rwigara with
discrimination and sectarian practices, and all three with inciting insurrection. The
incitement charges against Diane Rwigara reportedly stemmed from her criticism of the
current administration. Adeline Rwigara and the other family member were charged on the
basis of private conversations held over WhatsApp (without public dissemination), and did
not include any incitement to violence.
15.
The source submits that when Diane Rwigara, Adeline Rwigara and the family
member appeared before a judge at their bail hearing on 23 October 2017, the court denied
bail to Diane Rwigara and Adeline Rwigara, but dropped the charges against the family
member. The court concluded that Diane and Adeline Rwigara were a flight risk (despite
the Government keeping their passports and monitoring their home) and alleged that they
might tamper with evidence (which the Government had already collected). Their appeal
for release on bail was denied by the High Court on 16 November 2017, and they have
remained in maximum security prison since then. In the following months, the President
continued to tell the public that Diane Rwigara deserved to be in prison, and the
Government auctioned off the family tobacco company for approximately half of its fair
market value.
Trial proceedings
16.
The source submits that, on 7 May 2018, the date of the first hearing for Diane and
Adeline Rwigara, and for four co-defendants who live abroad, the High Court demanded
that the co-defendants be tried in person, offering no indication of how they might be
forcibly returned to Rwanda, despite the fact that the case had already sat dormant for
months. Two subsequent hearings were adjourned, with the prosecution asking for time to
gather more information on the co-defendants, and the trial to be postponed until at least 24
September 2018. Despite these continual and prolonged delays, Diane and Adeline Rwigara
did not have any opportunity to review their case file or the evidence against them, and they
have remained in a maximum security prison. Diane and Adeline Rwigara were housed in
small, filthy cells and allowed visitation for only 15 minutes per week. They had to rely on
family members for food.
17.
The source reports that, on 5 October 2018, Diane and Adeline Rwigara were
granted provisional release pending trial. Their release was granted more than one year
after their initial arrest and 11 months after the High Court first denied them bail. In
reversing its earlier decision, the High Court cited the prosecution’s failure to provide
credible reason for their detention pending trial.
Legal analysis
18.
According to the source, Diane and Adeline Rwigara’s detention constitutes an
arbitrary deprivation of liberty under categories II and III as defined by the Working Group.
In addition, Diane Rwigara’s detention constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty under
category V.
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
4
Category II
19.
The source submits that the detention of the two individuals is arbitrary under
category II because they were arrested and detained for exercising their freedom of opinion
and expression and freedom of association. Furthermore, Diane Rwigara was arrested and
detained for exercising her freedom of political participation. The authorities violated Diane
and Adeline Rwigara’s freedom of opinion and expression, guaranteed by article 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. The Human Rights Committee has recognized the right to
grant persons the ability to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their Government
without fear of interference or punishment. None of the exceptions set in article 19 (3) of
the Covenant is applicable in the present matter. Instead, the authorities violated Diane and
Adeline Rwigara’s rights by arresting and detaining them on the basis of their criticism of
the Government, including in private conversations.
20.
According to the source, the authorities also violated Diane and Adeline Rwigara’s
right to freedom of association, in violation of article 22 (1) of the Covenant and article 20
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Human Rights Committee has noted
that the right to freedom of association, including the right to form and join organizations
and associations concerned with political and public affairs, is an essential adjunct to the
right to participate in public affairs. In the present case, the administration has sought to
criminalize association with and support for Diane Rwigara and her political campaign. In
addition, targeting her family and her supporters constitutes a violation of the right to
freedom of association.
21.
The source submits that Diane Rwigara’s right to freedom of political participation
was also violated, contrary to article 25 (a) of the Covenant and article 21 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 55 of the Constitution also recognizes the
right of each Rwandan “to join a political organization of his or her choice”. The Human
Rights Committee has further emphasized the right of each person to engage in political
activity by debating public affairs, advertising political ideas, publishing political material
and campaigning for election. Diane Rwigara’s detention was a direct response to her
attempts to run for office and to lead a human rights campaign. The Government created
false claims against her to end her political campaign and, after she established the People
Salvation Movement, to remove her from civic life entirely. According to the source, the
charges sent the message that any opposition to the President would not be tolerated.
Category III
22.
The source submits that the two individuals’ detention is arbitrary under category III
of the Working Group because the authorities denied their due process rights under articles
7, 9, 10, 14 and 17 of the Covenant, articles 5, 9, 10 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, rules 43 and 119 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and principles 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 18, 21,
32, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Furthermore, their right not to be subjected to torture,
as prescribed by article 7 of the Covenant, has been violated. The source alleges that they
were both tortured both physically and mentally. The police force indeed broke Adeline
Rwigara’s back and leg during their initial house search, made threats of violence against
both of them, and forced them to sit in detention for 16 hours a day without food. After
taking them to jail, the police denied them food and locked each one up in a small cell with
unsanitary conditions. Furthermore, the authorities denied medical care to Adeline Rwigara
despite her repeated requests for health care.
23.
The source reports that, in violation of articles 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, article
9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2 and 36 (2) of the Body of
Principles, the authorities also denied Diane and Adeline Rwigara their right not to be
subjected to arbitrary arrest. They were never presented with an arrest warrant, and they
were not informed of the charges against them for several days after their arrest. At the time
of their bail hearing, the Government changed those charges without previously notifying
them.
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
5
24.
According to the source, the authorities further violated article 9 (3) and (4) of the
Covenant and principles 4, 11, 32 (a) and 37 of the Body of Principles by denying Diane
and Adeline Rwigara their right to habeas corpus. Those provisions require that detainees
“be brought promptly before a judge”. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted
“promptly” to mean within 48 hours, except in exceptional circumstances. The two
individuals were initially detained on 28 August 2017, and formally arrested on 23
September 2017. This deliberate delay ensured that they would be punished, harassed and
silenced before appearing before the court. They were not allowed before a judge until 23
October 2017, 30 days after their arrest and nearly two months after their initial detention.
25.
The source informs reports that, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant and
principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles, the right of the two individuals to release
pending trial was also violated. The Government waited one month after their formal arrest
to bring them before a judge. At that hearing, the court maintained their detention,
reiterating the Government’s claims that the two individuals would leave the country
(despite the fact that the Government had confiscated their passports and their home was
under surveillance) and would tamper with evidence (which the Government had already
collected). In the light of such an insufficient justification, the denial of bail in this case
amounted to a violation of their rights under international law.
26.
The source submits that the authorities further violated the right of the two
individuals to be tried without undue delay, contrary to article 14 (3)(c) of the Covenant
and principle 38 of the Body of Principles. The Human Rights Committee, in its general
comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair
trial, emphasized that, in cases where the accused are denied bail by the court, they must be
tried as expeditiously as possible. The initial hearing was set, however, after nearly six
months after their bail hearing, and since May 2018, the Court has repeatedly agreed to
postpone the trial at the prosecution’s request.
27.
According to the source, the two individuals were denied their right to defence and
to communicate with counsel, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant,
principles 18 (1) and (3) of the Body of Principles and rule 119 of the Nelson Mandela
Rules. The Government has also refused to allow their attorneys to be present during
interrogations, and the two individuals have been denied any access to counsel for portions
of their detention. Despite the repeated trial delays, the Government continues to deny their
counsel an adequate opportunity to review evidence and to prepare a defence.
28.
The source reports that the authorities have also denied the right of the two
individuals not to be subjected to unlawful searches of their home, in violation of article 17
of the Covenant and article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The
Rwandan police never presented a search warrant, but merely proceeded to ransack their
home and to confiscate personal items without justification.
Category V
29.
The source submits that Diane Rwigara’s detention is also arbitrary under category
V of the Working Group, because the authorities discriminated against her because of her
gender, in violation of articles 2 and 3 of the Covenant. Article 3 of the Covenant
guarantees the right to equality between men and women in the enjoyment of their civil and
political rights, while in article 2, the States parties to the Covenant undertake to ensure that
the rights recognized in the Covenant will be respected and be available to all people in the
States that have ratified the Covenant. A significant component of Diane Rwigara’s
political work was her support of women’s rights in Rwanda, and she sought to become the
first woman to be elected President of Rwanda. Immediately after she announced her
campaign, digitally altered intimate photos of her appeared on the Internet, probably posted
by government actors seeking to threaten, harass and retaliate against her. Such a smear
campaign has never been used against male opponents, and suggests that the Government
targeted Diane Rwigara precisely because she was a woman campaigning for women’s
rights.
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
6
Response from the Government
30.
On 2 November 2018, the Working Group transmitted the allegations made by the
source to the Government of Rwanda under its regular communications procedure. The
Working Group requested the Government to provide, by 2 January 2019, detailed
information about the situation of Diane and Adeline Rwigara.
31.
The Government responded to the Working Group on 8 January 2019. The response
was therefore late.
Further comments from the source
32.
The response from the Government was transmitted to the source, which provided
some further comments on 13 March 2019, reiterating its submissions and challenging the
response of the Government.
Discussion
33.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions,
and regrets that the Government did not submit its response within the allotted time frame.
34.
The Working Group takes note of the submissions by both parties that Diane and
Adeline Rwigara were released on bail first, and then acquitted of all charges. However,
they spent approximately one year in detention, while the circumstances of their arrest and
detention are alleged to follow a pattern. For those reasons, the Working Group is of the
view that rendering an opinion despite their release is necessary in conformity with
paragraph 17 (a) of its Methods of Work.
35.
The allegations made were detailed and coherent, while the Government confirmed
the basic facts in its late response. In addition, the source provided evidence in support of
its account. The Working Group finds the overall set of allegations credible.
36.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be
understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere
assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient
to rebut the source’s allegations (A/HRC/19/57, para. 68). In the present case, the
Government chose to submit its response late, knowing the consequences of such a late
submission. In addition, the Government, in its late response, chose not to provide any
supporting evidence.
37.
The Working Group notes that, according to the information provided by the source,
Diane and Adeline Rwigara were arrested on 23 September 2017, without being informed
of the reasons for their arrest, and without being presented with an arrest warrant or
informed of the reasons of their arrest. Furthermore, they were not brought before a judge
until 23 October 2017, a delay that prevented them not only from challenging the arrest and
subsequent detention but also preventing the judiciary from overseeing their deprivation of
liberty. The Government had an opportunity to challenge the allegations, but chose not to
do so in a manner that would uphold the refutation. As a result, the Working Group finds
that the arrest and detention lack legal basis, in violation of article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant. The arrest and detention are
therefore arbitrary under category I.
38.
The Working Group recalls its opinions No. 25/2012 and No. 85/2017 concerning
Rwanda, in which it found that journalists and former members of the Rwandan armed
forces had been arbitrarily detained for having peacefully exercised their right to freedom
of opinion and expression. The Working Group also notes that the Human Rights
Committee, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Rwanda,
expressed its concern at allegations of torture and ill-treatment being practiced in detention
centres as a means of eliciting confessions (CCPR/C/RWA/CO/4, para. 19). The
Committee also highlighted the vague nature of the definitions of certain offences, which
makes them susceptible to abuse, and expressed concern about the chilling effect they may
have on freedom of expression. It noted that opposition politicians, journalists and human
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
7
rights defenders had been prosecuted on the basis of such vague charges in order to prevent
them from expressing their opinions freely (ibid., para. 39). Furthermore, the Special
Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, in his report,
stressed his concern over the fate of unregistered opposition parties whose leaders had been
imprisoned in recent years (A/HRC/26/29/Add.2, para. 39). Finally, the Working Group
notes the judgment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Ingabire
Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (also cited by the Special Rapporteur in his
report), in which it found that the State had violated the freedom of opinion and expression
of Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza in prosecuting her for public statements that she made
through the law on genocide denial, overruling all domestic courts that had been seized of
the alleged crimes.
39.
With that background, the Working Group recalls that the source also reports that
Diane and Adeline Rwigara were charged with inciting insurrection, for having made
comments deemed critical of the Government. The charges against Adeline Rwigara
focused on private conversations that she had held over WhatsApp, and seem to have never
been disseminated publicly by her.
40.
The Working Group notes that article 19 (2) of the Covenant requires States parties
to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, and that the Human Rights Committee, in
its general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, specified
that limitations to freedom of expression could not be invoked as a justification for the
muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets or human rights. The
Working Group recalls that criticism of a Government is permissible in a democratic
society and protected by the freedom of opinion and expression. It therefore concludes that
the charges on the basis of which Diane Rwigara and Adeline Rwigara were arrested and
detained stem directly from the peaceful and legitimate exercise of their freedom of opinion
and expression, as guaranteed under article 19 of the Covenant, article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights.
41.
The Working Group notes the connection made by the source between the arrest and
detention on one hand, and Diane Rwigara’s plan to run in the presidential election on the
other. Indeed, in its late response, the Government claims that she forged signatures. The
Working Group further notes that she was acquitted after 12 months of detention. Bearing
in mind the repression of political opposition in the country through different means, the
Working Group is convinced that the attempt by Ms. Rwigara to participate in public affairs
was the key reason for her being deprived of liberty, even though that is a right provided for
in article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 25 of the Covenant,
and furthered by the right to freedom of association under article 20 (1) of the Universal
Declaration and article 22 (1) of the Covenant.
42.
In the absence of any justification to limit the enjoyment of those rights, the
Working Group concludes that the arrest and detention of Diane and Adeline Rwigara
were, in those circumstances, arbitrary under category II. As a result, there should not have
been any trial. A trial was however held, and the Working Group will now assess the
circumstances of it.
43.
Regarding the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, the Working Group notes
that the Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and
security of person, clarified that, for persons awaiting trial, detention should be the
exception and not the rule. The Working Group also notes that the Committee, in its general
comment No. 32, pointed out that detainees have the right to meet and communicate with
counsel in private, in conditions that respect the confidentiality of such meeting, and also
that the right to equality before the courts implies equality of arms and the absence of
discrimination for the parties to the proceedings.
44.
The Working Group holds the view that those rights have been violated because
Diane and Adeline Rwigara were not provided with appropriate conditions for the
preparation of their defence, thus infringing upon the equality of arms in the trial. The two
women were also unlawfully subject to solitary confinement for the first few days after
their arrest, further affecting their right. The Working Group considers that articles 5, 9 and
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
8
12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 7, 9, 10, 14 and 17 of the
Covenant, rules 43 and 119 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and principles 2, 4, 6, 11, 18, 32,
36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment have been violated. The Working Group finds that
these violations affected the right to fair trial in such a serious manner that the deprivation
of liberty became arbitrary, in accordance with category III.
45.
The Working Group is particularly concerned about the allegations of torture and ill-
treatment that Diane and Adeline Rwigara allegedly endured during certain interrogations.
In accordance with its established practice, the Working Group will refer the matter to the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment for further consideration of the circumstances of the case and, if necessary,
appropriate action.
46.
Lastly, the source also submits that Diane Rwigara faced a campaign of harassment
in the form of the divulgation of digitally altered intimate photos and the intimidation of her
supporters. Although those incidents certainly suggest the targeting of Ms. Rwigara, the
Working Group is unable come to a conclusion on any connection to the State. Moreover,
the positive conclusion on category II has already provided a remedy, for instance where
the responsibility of the State is clearly established. The Working Group therefore declines
to conclude on category V, but emphasizes that the State has an obligation to protect Ms.
Rwigara against such violations of her privacy.
Disposition
47.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Diane Shima Rwigara and Adeline Rwigara, being in
contravention of articles 5, 9, 12, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and of articles 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25 and 26 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II
and III.
48.
The Working Group requests the Government of Rwanda to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Diane Shima Rwigara and Adeline Rwigara without delay, and to
bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
49.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Diane Shima Rwigara and Adeline
Rwigara; their acquittal already serves such a purpose. It also considers that, in addition, the
Government of Rwanda should accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other
reparations, in accordance with international law, and to ensure that they do not face similar
prosecution in the future.
50.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Diane
Shima Rwigara and Adeline Rwigara, and to take appropriate measures against those
responsible for the violation of their rights.
51.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate through all available
means the present opinion among all stakeholders.
52.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group
refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment for appropriate action.
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/24
9
Follow-up procedure
53.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group
requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Diane Shima
Rwigara and Adeline Rwigara;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights
of Diane Shima Rwigara and Adeline Rwigara and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made
to harmonize the laws and practices of Rwanda with its international obligations in line
with the present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
54.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example, through a visit by the
Working Group.
55.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above
information within six months of the date of the transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
56.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all
States to cooperate with the Working Group and requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.1
[Adopted on 2 May 2019]
1 See Human Rights Council resolution 33/30, paras. 3 and 7.