003-3727100-4250462

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 216 (2011)   27.10.2011   Extradition of genocide suspect would not breach the European   Convention on Human Rights   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Ahorugeze v. Sweden (application   no. 37075/09), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there would be:   No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or   punishment), and   No violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human   Rights, if the applicant were extradited to Rwanda.   The case concerned the complaints by the applicant, a genocide suspect, that, if   extradited from Sweden to Rwanda, he risked ill-treatment and a flagrant denial of   justice.   Principal facts   The applicant, Sylvere Ahorugeze, is a Rwandan national of Hutu ethnicity who was born   in 1956 and lives in Denmark.   He used to be the head of the Rwandan Civil Aviation Authority. In 2001, he moved to   Denmark where he was granted refugee status.   Some time after September 2007, the Rwandan authorities requested his extradition   from Denmark on suspicion of involvement in genocide and crimes against humanity. As   no evidence was presented in support, however, the Danish authorities did not respond   to that request.   In July 2008, the Swedish police were informed by the Rwandan Embassy in Stockholm   that Mr Ahorugeze had visited Sweden and that the Rwandan authorities were seeking   his arrest. As a result, Sweden arrested him in compliance with an international alert and   warrant of arrest.   In August 2008, the Rwandan prosecution service formally requested Mr Ahorugeze’s   extradition so that he could be prosecuted for genocide, murder, extermination and   involvement with a criminal gang. They also presented assurances that he would be   treated humanely, in accordance with internationally accepted standards.   A Swedish court authorised Mr Ahorugeze’s detention on suspicion of genocide. Following   the prosecutor’s opinion favouring extradition, the Supreme Court concluded that there   was no general legal obstacle to sending Mr Ahorugeze to Rwanda to stand trial on   charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. The Supreme Court added that it   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   assumed the Swedish Government would consider further information before it took its   final decision whether to extradite.   In July 2009, the Swedish Government decided to extradite Mr Ahorugeze to Rwanda to   be tried for genocide and crimes against humanity. It noted that the death penalty and   life imprisonment in isolation had been abolished in 2007 and 2008 respectively. The   prison conditions were acceptable, and Rwanda did not practice torture or other forms of   ill-treatment. The Rwandan judicial system had improved over the last couple of years,   including its witness protection programme and the possibility to interview witnesses   living abroad.   On 15 July 2009, upon Mr Ahorugeze’s request, the Court – applying the rule on interim   measures of the Rules of Court - indicated to Sweden that his extradition should be   suspended. Following the Court’s request, the Swedish Government presented the   assurances it had received from the Rwandan Minister of Justice confirming that Mr   Ahorugeze would be tried fairly and treated correctly.   The Swedish Supreme Court released Mr Ahorugeze from detention on 27 July 2011.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3, Mr Ahorugeze complained that if extradited to Rwanda he would risk   being tortured or otherwise ill-treated. He further argued that would not be able to get   heart surgery in Rwanda and risked persecution because he was a Hutu. Under Article 6,   he alleged that he would not get a fair trial in Rwanda.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 July 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), PRESIDENT,   Elisabet Fura (Sweden),   Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic),   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco),   Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),   Angelika Nußberger (Germany), JUDGES,   and also Claudia Westerdiek, SECTION REGISTRAR.   Decision of the Court   Ill-treatment (Article 3)   While it appeared that Mr Ahorugeze had had a heart surgery earlier, there had been no   medical certificates suggesting that he would need another operation in the future. In   any event, Mr Ahorugeze’s condition was not so serious as to raise an issue on medical   grounds under Article 3.   As to his claim that he risked persecution because he was a Hutu, there had been no   information leading to the conclusion that Hutus generally were persecuted or ill-treated   in Rwanda. Likewise, Mr Ahorugeze had not described any personal circumstances   because of which he risked persecution as a Hutu.   The conditions in the prison in which he would be detained and, if convicted, would serve   his sentence were satisfactory. In particular, the International Criminal Tribunal for   Rwanda (in a case before it), the Netherlands Government (in its observations as a third   party in the present case) and the Oslo District Court (in a case allowing the extradition   to Rwanda in July 2011 of another genocide suspect) had confirmed that. The Special   Court for Sierra Leone too had sent several convicted persons to serve their sentences in   the same Rwandan prison which was to host Mr Ahorugeze.   Finally, there was nothing to suggest that he would be ill-treated in Rwanda. As of 2008,   people transferred by other States to Rwanda to stand trial could not be sentenced to life   imprisonment in isolation.   Consequently, Sweden would not breach the prohibition of ill-treatment under Article 3   of the Convention, if it extradited Mr Ahorugeze to Rwanda.   Fair trial (Article 6)   It was true that in 2008 and 2009 the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)   and several countries had refused to transfer genocide suspects to Rwanda due to   concerns that the suspects would not receive a fair trial. However, since then, the   Rwandan laws had been changed and legal practice had improved.   The central question therefore was whether Mr Ahorugeze would be able to call   witnesses and have the Rwandan courts examine their testimony respecting the principle   of equality of arms between defence and prosecution. Considering in detail the changes   in legislation and practice, the Court concluded that the Rwandan courts were expected   to act in a manner compatible with the Convention requirements for fair trial.   In addition, Mr Ahorugeze would be able to appoint a lawyer of his choice; he could also   benefit from a lawyer paid by the State, and many Rwandan lawyers had accumulated   professional experience longer than five years.   Referring to experience gathered by Dutch investigative teams and the Norwegian police   during missions to Rwanda, the Court concluded that the Rwandan judiciary could not be   considered to lack independence and impartiality.   Further, Mr Ahorugeze had not showed that he would be tried unfairly because he had   testified for the defence in genocide trials in the past. Extradited genocide suspects were   tried by the Rwandan High Court and Supreme Court, and not by the community-based   gacaca tribunals set up in 2002 to deal with the enormous amount of cases by bringing   genocide participants to trial and promoting national unity.   Finally, the ICTR had decided, for the first time in June 2011, to transfer an indicted   genocide suspect – Uwinkindi - for trial in Rwanda. It had found that the issues, on the   basis of which it had refused to transfer genocide suspects to Rwanda in 2008, had been   resolved to a degree which made it confident that the accused would receive a fair trial   in Rwanda in line with internatonal human rights standards.   Consequently, if extradited to stand trial in Rwanda, Mr Ahorugeze would not risk a   flagrant denial of justice. There would, therefore, be no violation of Article 6 in that   event.   The Court indicated to the Swedish Government not to extradite Mr Ahorugeze until this   judgment became final.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Petra Leppee Fraize (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 07)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4