Experts of the Human Rights Committee Welcome Rwanda’s Decriminalisation of Defamation, Raise Questions on Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and the Closure of Thousands of Places of Worship
The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Rwanda on how it implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Committee Experts welcomed the State party’s decriminalisation of defamation and other offences concerning the national authorities in the media, while raising questions on discrimination experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, and the closure of thousands of places of worship by the State.
A Committee Expert said the Committee welcomed the information received from the State party that defamation, as well as insults against certain national and foreign authorities, primarily the criminal offence of “humiliation of national authorities and persons in charge of public service” and “public defamation of religious rituals” had been decriminalised. The information provided by the State party on the progress in revising the 2011 media policy was also appreciated.
One Committee Expert said decriminalising consensual same-sex relations was one thing, and ensuring effective protection against discrimination was another. Did the Penal Code protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and sex characteristics? Were there any judicial decisions confirming this interpretation? Reports described lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons detained at transit centres for alleged “deviant” behaviour. How did the State party reconcile this framework with the Covenant? What safeguards, including access to counsel, prompt judicial review and accurate detention records, were available?
Another Committee Expert said the Committee had received information about the closure of between 7,000 and 10,000 churches and 100 mosques for non-compliance with the law. What were the main reasons for such high numbers of closures? How were religious communities informed about this and were there any remedies available? Had any of these places of worship reopened? What measures were taken to ensure that individuals remained able to worship collectively, without facing sanctions for engaging in unregistered religious activities?
Presenting the report, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, head of the delegation, said the Rwandan Constitution guaranteed the right to life and physical integrity, privacy and freedom of assembly and association, among other freedoms, and the State party had abolished the death penalty in 2007. Rwanda had strengthened the capacity of the National Commission for Human Rights, guaranteeing it legal and financial autonomy. It investigated complaints and conducted visits to places where persons were deprived of their liberty.
Responding to questions, the delegation said lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons were not criminalised in Rwanda. In practice, there were institutions where people could bring their cases if they were targeted. The language in the Penal Code was restrictive, and potentially the language of the Constitution could be adopted instead. There had been no complaints from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons on being targeted for who they were. There may be stigma, but this did not mean someone was not able to enjoy their rights. In terms of them being detained in a transit centre for deviant behaviour, this was not because of who they were. There were no cases of anyone being detained for this reason.
The delegation said in July 2024, the Government undertook nationwide inspections of all places of worship, which resulted in the closure of around 8,000 prayer houses which did not satisfy legal requirements. This process was intended to secure compliance and prayer houses which fulfilled the required standards had applied to be reopened. This was still an ongoing process; some of the deficiencies required simply the submission of theology degrees, while others required building works which took longer. Twenty-one faith-based organizations had had their legal personality revoked following harmful practices, and 181 illegal prayer houses were permanently closed. The inspections and subsequent closures aimed to guarantee responsible preaching within communities.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Ugirashebuja thanked the Committee Experts for their engagement and cooperation. The dialogue had provided a valuable opportunity to present Rwanda’s progress since the previous review and reflect on areas requiring further attention.
Changrok Soh, Committee Chairperson, in his concluding remarks, thanked the Rwandan delegation for presenting its report and for the constructive dialogue. The Committee acknowledged the State party’s rebuilding efforts post conflict, and challenges to implement the Covenant in this context.
The delegation of Rwanda was made up of representatives of the Ministry of Justice; the Rwanda Governance Board; and the Permanent Mission of Rwanda to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-sixth session is being held from 19 October to 6 November 2026. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 22 October, to begin its consideration of the sixth periodic report of Cameroon (CCPR/C/CMR/6).
Report
The Committee has before it the fifth periodic report of Rwanda (CCPR/C/RWA/5).
Presentation of Report
EMMANUEL UGIRASHEBUJA, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, head of the delegation, said the Rwandan Constitution guaranteed the right to life and physical integrity, privacy and freedom of assembly and association, among other freedoms, and the State party had abolished the death penalty in 2007. The Constitutional framework affected the rights and framework protected by the Covenant and provided for their implementation at the national level. Rwanda had strengthened the capacity of the National Commission for Human Rights, guaranteeing it legal and financial autonomy. It investigated complaints and conducted visits to places where persons were deprived of their liberty. Its annual budget had increased 111 per cent between 2020/2021 and 2026/2027.
Rwanda’s Constitution guaranteed equality before the law and prohibited discrimination. These protections were reinforced through legislation and policies on gender equality and disability rights. Consensual same-sex relations were not criminalised, and equal access to public services applied to all persons. Rwanda had strengthened prevention of and accountability for gender-based violence; 48 Isange One Stop Centres provided integrated support services, alongside shelters and reporting channels. Between January 2021 and June 2025, 37,403 gender-based violence cases were received, 19,242 cases were filed before courts, and 14,815 perpetrators were convicted. Children in street situations were treated as children in need of protection and reintegration. During the reporting period, 8,072 children were reintegrated into families and 3,571 transitioned from institutional to family-based care.
Judicial independence was guaranteed by the Constitution. The integrated electronic case management system had modernised case filing and tracking, with over 308,000 active users, while mediation and plea bargaining helped reduce delays. The 2022 criminal justice policy promoted alternatives to imprisonment and restorative justice. Between 2022 to 2026, 38,084 cases were resolved through plea bargaining and victim-offender mediation. Since 2016, 23,938 persons benefited from parole and 1,028 from presidential pardons.
Rwanda had improved correctional facilities through infrastructure upgrades and expanded access to services. The national occupancy rate declined to 98.1 per cent by August 2026. Separate accommodation was provided for men, women, children and vulnerable groups, although full separation of remand and convicted inmates remained a challenge. Correctional facilities were subject to oversight by the National Commission for Human Rights.
The 2024 refugee law strengthened protection against refoulement, established an independent appeal mechanism and allowed for judicial review. Rwanda did not use administrative detention for immigration offences and migrants were not deprived of liberty due to irregular status.
As the two key United Nations Covenants marked their sixtieth anniversaries, Rwanda reaffirmed its commitment to both Covenants, to the indivisibility of all human rights, and to the continued implementation of its obligations. Rwanda looked forward to a constructive dialogue and continued cooperation with the Committee.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert was pleased to enter the constructive dialogue with the high-level delegation of Rwanda. The Committee understood that the last national human rights action plan had expired in 2020 and that the adoption of a new plan had been delayed. Could the State party provide a timeline for its adoption? How was civil society involved in the drafting of the plan? How often, and on which issues, was the Covenant used in domestic courts. Were training courses for law enforcement officials compulsory and did they cover the whole country? Were these trainings also available to other actors, such as the military, as well as healthcare providers, including those involved in drugs response? Which measures had the State party taken to promote legal literacy among the public and raise awareness on the Covenant and the Committee’s concluding observations? The State report informed about a national mechanism for implementation, reporting and follow-up coordinated by the Ministry of Justice. When was the legal mandate expected to be approved so that the mechanism could become fully operational?
Rwanda had indicated the possibility of ratifying the first Optional Protocol. What were the main considerations or concerns that prevented the State party from ratifying it? The criminal justice system faced serious challenges, including a heavy caseload and shortages of judges, prosecutors and defence counsel. What measures had the State party taken to increase the capacity of the justice system? What measures had been taken to combat corruption in the justice system and to promote trust? How was appropriate legal assistance in all stages of legal proceedings ensured, in particular for indigenous peoples, women, children, persons with disabilities, refugees, asylum seekers and detainees? How did the State party ensure fair trial guarantees in their alternative mechanisms?
The Committee welcomed the re-accreditation of the National Human Rights Commission with A status in 2026, as well as the new law adopted in 2026 that formally guaranteed its institutional, administrative and financial independence and autonomy. It was hoped this would lead to the independence of the Commission in practice. The Committee also welcomed the reported doubling of the budget for the National Human Rights Commission since 2020. At the same time, the Committee remained concerned about insufficient human and financial resources to allow the Commission to fully carry out its mandate. Would additional funds be made available?
How many visits were conducted to places where persons were deprived of their liberty? Did these include unofficial or informal facilities, as well as medical, psychiatric and transit facilities? It was understood that the National Human Rights Commission published reports and recommendations. Did the reports include disaggregated data on visits and findings, and on complaints received, including against public officials, and their outcome? How widely were the reports and recommendations by the Commission disseminated? How did the State party ensure follow-up of the recommendations? Were there plans to establish offices in rural and remote areas?
Another Expert said that while respecting the policy of Rwanda to promote national unity after the tragedy of 1994, by prohibiting the use of ethnic classification in public discourse, reiterating the Government's position not to consider any group of Rwandans as distinct from others, as well as the Governmental measures relating to persons with disabilities, several challenges presented themselves. Could the delegation of Rwanda provide information on the measures taken to improve the status of persons with disabilities, their full integration in the society, and their enjoyment of their rights on equal footing with their peers in all areas? What measures were being taken to address the disparities affecting the Batwa, and their women and girls in particular, as far as their limited access to social services? What was being done to combat poverty and malnutrition among their communities? How were State programmes designed, financed and implemented to ensure they reached Batwa women and girls?
Despite the achievements of Rwanda to combat violence against women and girls, a number of challenges remained, including negative social norms, deeply rooted stereotypes, and the lack of clear strategy and systematic community reintegration. In face of fear of stigmatisation and social exclusion, many victims did not report these crimes. What measures would the Government take to remedy this attitude on the part of the victims and their families? What measures were being taken to increase the number of shelters aimed at protecting the victims of violence? What capacity building programmes had been provided to law enforcement personnel, the judiciary, medical staff and social workers involved in combatting gender-based violence?
It was deplorable that women, who had to be the breadwinners for their families and took to the streets as informal vendors, were beaten, abused and arrested arbitrarily by the police. Could the delegation respond to concerns regarding the inconsistent treatment of rape within marriage under the current legal framework? What measures did the State party intend to take to harmonise its legislation concerning marital rape and ensure that all victims received equal protection and access to justice? What role did the media, religious and opinion leaders, and civil society organizations play in organising campaigns to combat violence against women in all areas of life, as well as harmful practices?
Decriminalising consensual same-sex relations was one thing, ensuring effective protection against discrimination was another. Did the Penal Code protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and sex characteristics? Were there any judicial decisions confirming this interpretation? Could figures be provided on complaints, investigations, prosecutions and remedies? One of the reports identified social stigma as a major concern, resulting in exclusion from access to health care and education, as well as violence. Did the State party have any plans to adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation explicitly protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons?
Reports described lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons detained at transit centres for alleged “deviant” behaviour. How did the State party reconcile this framework with the Covenant? What safeguards, including access to counsel, prompt judicial review and accurate detention records, were available? According to reliable sources, a total of 278 persons across nine districts were held in transit centres beyond the two-month limit without an authorised extension. Had Rwanda specifically investigated allegations of discriminatory detention, and what follow-up action had resulted? Did the training of law enforcement officials specifically address sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, including discriminatory profiling and the treatment of transgender persons? What disciplinary or criminal consequences had followed substantiated allegations of abuse by officials?
Another Committee Expert asked if the delegation could confirm the maximum time that may pass between actual apprehension and the first appearance before a judge? Could the proportion of prisoners held on remand, the typical duration of that detention, and the frequency with which courts granted release be provided?
The Committee acknowledged the importance of the Rubavu prosecution concluded in April 2024. Nevertheless, there were allegations of torture in Rubavu and Nyarugenge prisons and at the unofficial facility known as Kwa Gacinya. United Nations experts had also raised allegations of torture and denial of medical care concerning Dieudonné Niyonsenga. What investigations followed these reports? Had Kwa Gacinya been inspected independently? What was established about its use?
Could the State party provide further clarification regarding allegations of the existence and use of other unofficial detention facilities within its territory, as well as any complaints received concerning such facilities? Did the authorities maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date register of all places of detention, and was this register accessible to bodies with oversight and monitoring mandates, including the national preventive mechanism? Who conducted criminal investigations when police, military or intelligence officers were implicated? How was that body independent of the alleged perpetrators? Could detainees complain confidentially and obtain an independent medical examination without fear of reprisals? If courts received allegations that a confession was obtained through torture, what steps must be taken to investigate and exclude that evidence?
Regarding the explanations concerning Innocent Bahati and Donat Mutunzi, information gathered during the investigation indicated that Mr. Bahati entered Uganda after he was reported missing. Could the delegation explain what evidence supported that conclusion? Had investigators established his present whereabouts or obtained reliable confirmation that he was alive? Did this remain an active missing-person investigation? What information had been shared with his family, and what arrangements allowed them to participate and receive regular updates?
Mr. Mutunzi was arrested on 19 April 2018 and died in custody on 23 April.
Earlier public reporting described a period of 10 days between his arrest and death. Could the delegation clarify the chronology, including the date of actual apprehension and the date his detention was formally registered? The report concluded that he died by suicide. Who conducted that investigation? Was the investigating body institutionally and practically independent of the officers responsible for his custody? Was an autopsy conducted by an independent forensic expert? Did the family receive the findings and have an opportunity to seek further examination? Were possible ill-treatment, failures of supervision and other explanations examined?
Robert Kabrera’s mutilated body was recently found in Uganda. He was a well-known musician, blogger and critic of the Rwandan Government and on several occasions, requested special protection from Ugandan authorities because of alleged transborder threats coming from Rwanda. Were Rwandan authorities already contacted by Uganda, and if properly requested, would they cooperate in the investigation of this case?
Independent human rights observers had documented allegations of killings, attempted abductions, assaults and intimidation affecting Rwandans abroad.
Which cases had the Rwandan authorities examined? Had they requested or provided evidence through cooperation with the countries concerned? Had any officials been investigated, prosecuted or disciplined? What safeguards protected relatives in Rwanda from pressure linked to the activities of family members abroad? Could they report threats through an independent and confidential channel?
What investigations and judicial proceedings had addressed alleged violations by members of the Rwandan Patriotic Front or its armed wing in Rwanda in 1994? Could the delegation specify the cases investigated, the persons prosecuted, the judgments and sentences, and any reparations provided? What investigations had addressed the alleged attacks by Rwandan forces against Hutus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1996 and the following period?
Another Expert noted the adoption of law no. 42/2024 governing refugees and applicants for refugee status in Rwanda, maintaining the non-refoulement principle and establishing an Appeal Tribunal. The Committee also noted the efforts of the State party regarding education, healthcare and legal aid for refugees. However, information available to the Committee indicated that serious legislative gaps, operational deficiencies and bilateral arrangements continued to pose significant risks to asylum-seekers’ rights and the implementation of the non-refoulement principle.
What steps had been taken to establish narrow legal criteria for “national security” and “public order”, preventing arbitrary status revocation or expulsion of refugees and critics? How was the State party implementing robust protection mechanisms against alleged transnational repression targeting refugees and asylum seekers, including surveillance, threats, abductions and suspicious killings? What had been done to provide clarification regarding the legal reforms through which administrative immigration detention was discontinued? How was Rwanda improving conditions and safety in transit centres, addressing food insecurity, overcrowding, movement restrictions and unequal healthcare access?
How was the State party strengthening early identification and referral mechanisms at borders and transit centres to protect vulnerable women, girls and orphans from trafficking and exploitation? How did bilateral agreements and other planned deals comply with the Covenant? How was it ensured that transferred women and girls had unhindered access to gender-responsive services and justice and were not penalised or detained for immigration offenses caused by their forced transfer?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said after the genocide against the Tutsi, Rwanda was a country that was trying to rebuild itself. The reforms were an ongoing process. Rwanda was number one on the rule of law index in the sub–Saharan African region. It had improved its ranking by 934 per cent over the years.
Robert Kabrera had taken refuge in Uganda, following a call to appear before Rwandan courts on grounds of child defilement of a family member. Ugandan police were undertaking investigations and he had been labelled as a political dissident. This kind of methodology should be re-examined. More than 4,000 people were murdered every year in Uganda. The methodology for classifying cases should potentially be revaluated.
Targeted trainings were provided on issues of human rights, and human rights courses were made compulsory in law school curriculums. It was important to understand why lawyers were not using the particular laws and Covenants. The situation had improved, but the State believed more could be done to encourage lawyers to apply international conventions. Rwanda had a criminal justice policy which aimed to address the heavy case backlog. Training of judges and prosecutors was ongoing, and new innovations had led to a 20 per cent reduction of the backlog of cases in under two years.
A mediated outcome was documented and taken to the court, enabling the judge to make an enforceable argument. Rwanda had a system for civil servants with grades. Workers at the National Human Rights Commission were ranked the same as other civil servants, and there were questions as to whether the rankings could be improved. There were currently two locations of the National Human Rights Commission, with another two offices planned as part of the decentralisation process.
Rwanda had appointed the first women prosecutor since independence. Persons with disabilities were able to elect a member in the Chamber of Deputies. Within the councils of the local government, there were certain positions reserved for persons with disabilities. A lot had been done, including construction permits to construct buildings, to ensure people with disabilities were not excluded in day to day lives in schools. Reasonable accommodations were provided for people with disabilities who wished to sit exams in universities.
Access to basic health necessities, cancer treatment, and other medical procedures had been extended to all members of Rwandan society under the nation’s health insurance.
Gender-based violence was an issue which needed to be dealt with broadly and universally. It was important to ensure that victims were comfortable enough to report cases. The one stop centres included counselling services, a medical doctor and places of safety. These centres had helped significantly in increasing reporting, and enabling people to present their cases. Special protection was given to victims to ensure they were not stigmatised. Education was also provided around the issue of stigmatisation to overcome this issue.
No one was arrested for the kind of work they undertook; there were certain areas where informal work was not permitted, but there was no information on anyone being jailed for undertaking informal selling, including the cases of women mentioned by the Committee.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons were not criminalised in Rwanda. In practice, there were institutions where people could bring their cases if they were targeted. The language in the Penal Code was restrictive, and potentially the language of the Constitution could be adopted instead. The Constitution took precedence over any other law.
The State endeavoured to conduct investigations as fast as possible, but the law allowed for five days before commencing investigations. However, the State encouraged 48 hours before the case was transmitted to the prosecution and the courts, and saw the five days as an exception. Any place of detention was outlined in the law, and any places which were not, fell under the category of illegal detention. The centre referred to by the delegation was a torture area which had been manned by a particular person; however, its actual existence was not confirmed. Illegal detention was a serious issue and the State did not have a record of this place.
Information could be sent to investigative bodies privately if people were fearing reprisals. The Bahati and Mutunzi cases were still open, and it was hoped that information would be provided to the investigative bodies which enabled them to undertake their work. It was important to act primarily on evidence, not just allegations. Mutunzi had died in prison, which had been concluded by an independent autopsy report. The report was shared with the family members, as was a normal practice.
The Government aimed to put in place further measures to minimise suicide rates in detention centres. In the case of Robert Kabrera, Rwanda would cooperate when necessary. It was expected that a lot of information would come to light following the investigation, and the labelling of him as a dissident may be repealed.
Media and religious leaders were key partners to help combat and prevent gender-based violence. The 2013 media law provided the framework through which journalists could operate. Faith-based operators were particularly influential in shaping family values. Civil society organizations complimented these efforts through positive masculinity programmes and support for survivors of gender-based violence. Rwanda continually engaged the media, religious leaders and civil society to positively influence men and boys.
An applicant for a refugee status or a refugee could not be expelled or returned to a country where their life would be threatened. Rwanda had always operated from a place of addressing the root cause of a crisis, including the global migration crisis. A mechanism had been developed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and introduced to evacuate migrants and asylum seekers trapped in Libya, to bring them to Rwanda for safety and opportunities. Rwanda was always looking for solutions in partnerships with other countries and recognised migrants as important developers of the country.
Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including if there had been corruption targeted in the justice system; possible continued detention after people had completed their sentence; steps taken to ensure that lesbian, gay, transgender and intersex persons were not discriminated against in practice; how the legal protections in this regard operated in practice; if there were independent investigations into allegations of violations by the Rwandan Patriotic Front; if there were any independent investigations launched as a result of the mapping report; and for more clarification on alleged arrests of informal women workers.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said there was corruption, but it was not systemic and only involved a few individuals. The system was robust enough to deal with these issues. There was always the option to appeal the judgement and an internal mechanism existed to correct these issues. The integrated electronic case management system contained all details of course cases, right through to when someone completed their sentences. The State had professional bailiffs who helped in situations where cases were not voluntarily executed.
There had been no complaints from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons on being targeted for who they were. There may be stigma, but this did not mean someone was not able to enjoy their rights. In terms of them being detained in a transit centre for deviant behaviour, this was not because of who they were. There were no cases of anyone being detained for this reason.
There was no follow-up or investigations made on the basis of the mapping report, as the State had discredited this report. The Committee was called on to look at the mapping report again and check the sources.
The delegation said homelessness and begging were not criminalised under the law; someone could not be arrested on those grounds alone. Certain cities prohibited street vending, and people engaging in those activities could be asked to vacate the area or receive a fine. The State recognised the precarity which forced women and children into street vending. Programmes were available to formalise trading, including one which provided market stalls. Through this programme, many women had been able to finalise their trade. Programmes prioritised family tracing, reintegration and strengthening for children in street situations.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said in resolution 2773, adopted unanimously in February 2025, the Security Council called on the Rwanda Defence Force to cease support to M23 and withdraw from Congolese territory without preconditions. The 2025 report of the United Nations Group of Experts also described Rwandan military involvement and effective command and control over M23 operations. How did the delegation reconcile its categorical denial with these findings? Which specific findings did Rwanda dispute, and what evidence had it provided in response? Had an independent national authority examined the underlying allegations?
What investigations had been undertaken into allegations that persons, including children, were recruited in Rwanda or trained on Rwandan territory for deployment with M23? What safeguards were present at recruitment points, training facilities and border crossings? How was age verified? Could children and their families report recruitment attempts safely? How many children had been identified, released from armed groups and referred for protection and reintegration? Had military investigators examined allegations concerning the provision of personnel, weapons, training, transport or logistical assistance to M23? Had possible responsibility for summary executions, sexual violence, torture or forced displacement been examined? Could the delegation identify any ongoing or completed investigations, their scope and their outcomes?
What binding instructions prohibited Rwandan personnel from assisting recruitment or operations involving serious abuses?
Another Expert said the Committee continued to receive reports that under 2017 legislation, anyone exhibiting " deviant behaviours " such as drug use, begging, vagrancy or informal street vending could be held in a transit centre for up to two months, without any other further legal justification or oversight. In view of this broad interpretation of the term " deviant behaviour " how was this term applied to persons living on the street, men and women, children and adults?
Reports on the situation of the detainees in Kigali transit centre, known as Gironde transit centre, deplored the dire conditions in the centre, particularly for children. What were the measures taken by the Government to remedy the deplorable situation of the detainees, especially juvenile detainees, before their transfer to the rehabilitation establishments? Had the Government considered reducing the detention of children in conflict with the law and develop and implement noncustodial solutions? As far as the abusive treatment and misconduct by the police such as arbitrary detention and use of violence with the detainees, what measures were taken to prosecute those responsible, hold them accountable and apply the appropriate penalties?
Despite the significant progress achieved by the State party, the efforts such as expanding facilities, implementing plea bargaining and using noncustodial sentences had not fully alleviated the issue of overcrowding of the prisons, which continued to persist, particularly for pretrial detainees. What steps had been taken to remedy procedural delays and case backlogs that continued to affect the judicial system and led to long pretrial detentions, delaying access to justice and exacerbating overcrowding in detention facilities? How did the Government ensure the effectiveness of the accessibility and independence of complaints mechanisms for detainees experiencing ill treatment or procedural violations? What measures were put in place to protect juvenile detainees and ensure their separation from adults in detention facilities?
Another Expert asked how members of the High Council of the Judiciary were selected? What involvement did the executive have in judicial appointments, promotions, disciplinary proceedings and removal, and what safeguards prevented undue influence? What mechanisms enabled allegations of interference with judges to be investigated independently, and had any complaints resulted in remedies or disciplinary action? What progress had been achieved under the national strategy for transformation 2024–2029?
What was the timetable for establishing the Legal Aid Fund, and how was adequate funding secured in the meantime? Who determined eligibility for legal aid, on what published criteria, and could refusals be challenged? Who provided effective legal representation to indigent suspects during investigation and pretrial detention, including in remote communities and for persons with disabilities? How many civilians had been tried by military courts during the reporting period, for which offences, and with what outcomes and appeals? What specific measures ensured effective enjoyment of fair trial guarantees under the Covenant?
How often had the urgent procedure by the Prosecutor General been used, and what safeguards governed its use? What independent judicial scrutiny was available before or during interception to assess necessity and proportionality?
The 2014 Prime Minister’s Order provided for authorisation by designated prosecutors and listed a broader range of offences, including murder and tax evasion. Did this Order remain applicable and, if so, how were these apparent differences reconciled, particularly regarding the competent authorising authority and the scope of offences subject to interception?
What authority did the National Cyber Security Authority have to independently inspect security agencies’ practices? A source raised allegations that mass surveillance was facilitated by law and that Pegasus or similar spyware had been deployed against political opponents, human rights defenders and persons in the diaspora. Had the Government commissioned or permitted an independent investigation, and if so, what were its findings?
In the context of the 2024 elections, why were six presidential candidacies rejected, including Diane Rwigara, and why were requests for legal rehabilitation by Victoire Ingabire and Bernard Ntaganda denied; were timely appeals available? What investigations and remedies had followed the reported deaths of Anselme Mutuyimana and Syldio Dusabumuremyi and the disappearances of Boniface Twagirimana and others？
What concrete institutional safeguards ensured the independence and impartiality of the National Electoral Commission? How were allegations of electoral irregularities investigated and adjudicated independently, what protections existed for complainants, and could the State party provide statistics on complaints, decisions and effective remedies? How could unregistered opposition groups and independent political actors participate in public policy debate and peaceful political activities outside the Forum without undue restrictions or intimidation? A source expressed concern that a draft non-governmental organization law could restrict activities deemed political; what was the current status of that legislation, and what safeguards protected independent advocacy and civil society organizations?
The Committee was concerned about extensive requirements for registration in the law on faith-based associations, such as disclosure of sources of revenue, strict building, hygiene and noise requirements, and clergy with accredited theological qualifications. Could the State explain how it ensured that these requirements did not imply undue interference with freedom of religion, especially for smaller or newly established religious communities, and that the autonomy of religious communities was fully respected?
The Committee also received information about the closure of between 7,000 and 10,000 churches and 100 mosques for non-compliance with the law. What were the main reasons for such a high number of closures? How were religious communities informed about this and were there any remedies available? Had any of these places of worship reopened? What measures were taken to ensure that individuals remained able to worship collectively, without facing sanctions for engaging in unregistered religious activities? How did the State party ensure that all people who refused to participate in night patrols or similar activities for religious reasons were offered alternatives?
Rwanda did not classify Rwandans into separate ethnic or indigenous legal categories and did not recognise a distinct group-specific right to self-determination. The Committee appreciated the historical context of this approach, but how did the State party ensure full respect for Covenant rights of minorities and indigenous peoples, including the Batwa? How did Rwanda guarantee that the Batwa and other communities could freely form and join associations promoting their cultural identity or advocating for their interests, including in politics?
What measures had the State party taken to guarantee the rights of the Batwa to access and use their ancestral lands and natural resources, and to facilitate access to land titling procedures? How did it support communities affected by climate change? To what extent did it provide accessible remedies for resolving disputes around land insecurity and unresolved compensation cases, and ensure access to legal assistance? The Committee received reports indicating that the Batwa community had not been meaningfully consulted in processes around the conservation of their forest ecosystems. How did Rwanda guarantee the right of indigenous peoples, including the Batwa, to systematically and meaningfully participate in all decision-making that affected them?
The Committee welcomed the information received from the State party that defamation, as well as insults against certain national and foreign authorities, primarily the criminal offence of “humiliation of national authorities and persons in charge of public service” and “public defamation of religious rituals” had been decriminalised. The information provided by the State party on the progress in revising the 2011 media policy was also appreciated.
However, reports indicated a pattern of widespread use of provisions of the Penal Code and cybercrime law to disproportionately target human rights defenders, journalists, civil society organizations and opposition political activists. When would the 2011 media policy be finalised and adopted? How did the vaguely defined crimes of “publication of rumours through digital platforms” and “spreading false information or propaganda with intent to cause a hostile international opinion against the Government of Rwanda”, conform to necessity and proportionality under the Covenant?
What measures were taken to revise or repeal the respective legal provisions of the Penal Code and the cybercrime law that enabled arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression? How did the introduction of licensing and registration requirements for online news outlets under the 2021 media law ensure free speech and independent journalism? Could details of any investigation and judicial inquiry undertaken in relation to harassment, intimidation or ill treatment of journalists and human rights defenders be provided?
Could information be provided regarding digital surveillance and censorship of online content and investigations of such allegations, including the use of Pegasus spyware to monitor journalists, interception of internet communications, and allegations of personal intimidation for expressing views? What legal and practical safeguards existed from censorship in the digital sphere, including any inquiry into allegations of intimidation and reprisals?
The Committee welcomed the draft law that allowed non-governmental organizations to enter into agreements and partnerships with other entities and the Government, conduct commercial activities, express opinions and views, participate in designing national policies and legislation, and advocate for the protection and promotion of human rights. It also welcomed the establishment of a single legal framework for both national and international non-governmental organizations.
Could the delegation identify the provision of law 058/2024 that allowed an organization that was denied a certificate of legal personality or registration to appeal the refusal before an independent and impartial court? How many refusals had been issued since the law came into force? How many non-governmental organizations had lost the validity of their certificate under the law 058/2024 after the 24-month transition period for aligning existing organizations with the law, and what remedies were available to them? To what extent were non-governmental organizations consulted in the preparation of the law?
Which instrument and notice period currently governed public demonstrations? How were a 30-day period and a written-approval requirement necessary and proportionate? How was the absence of any exception for spontaneous demonstrations compatible with the right of peaceful assembly? How was the use of force by the Rwanda National Police during peaceful assemblies regulated in practice? Could the State party respond to allegations that the police had forcibly dispersed protests, including cases in which organizers had obtained official authorisation? What were the outcomes of such incidents, including any investigations conducted and their outcomes?
Responses by the Delegation
The Rwanda Defence Forces were among of the most disciplined forces. The State abided by the Kigali Principles [on the protection of civilians]. There was no recruitment of any sort, particularly of children, and weapons had not been supplied. Sources before the Security Council pointed to serious allegations; whether they were fact was something that needed to be assessed. If reports were taken on face value of who did it, there was a risk of authority bias.
The Rwanda Governance Borad was the public institution mandated to promote the media sector and regulate faith-based organizations. Freedom of thought, conscious or religion was expressly guaranteed within the Constitution. Religious freedom was recognised as a fundamental right. Equally, the State had a responsibility to protect life, health, safety and dignity and the fundamental rights of those participating in religious activities. Law 72/2018 established requirements which pursued legitimate public interest objectives, and did not determine religious theology or prioritise one religion over another. In July 2024, the Government undertook nationwide inspections of all places of worship, which resulted in the closure of around 8,000 prayer houses which did not satisfy legal requirements.
Widespread noncompliance with public safety requirements did not remove the State’s duty to protect worshippers. This process was intended to secure compliance and prayer houses which fulfilled the required standards had applied to be reopened. This was still an ongoing process; some of the deficiencies required simply the submission of theology degrees, while others required building works which took longer. Twenty-one faith-based organizations had had their legal personality revoked following harmful practices, and 181 illegal prayer houses were permanently closed. The inspections and subsequent closures aimed to guarantee responsible preaching within communities.
Freedom of expression, opinion and press were constitutionally recognised and protected. Rwanda’s approach to media governance had undergone significant reform and the 2013 media law established the foundation for media regulation. The access to information law established a legal framework through which the public and journalists could obtain information held by public institutions and private bodies. The media law also provided protection against censorship and safeguards for journalistic sources. During the reporting period, the Media Commission received 140 complaints, of which the majority were handled. Rwanda was undertaking a review of the 2011 media policy to align national policy with changing communication environments.
The 2024 law governing non-governmental organizations was an important reform in the Rwandan legislative framework. It sought to address limitations in the previous administration, including challenges relating to governance and transparency. A central feature of the law was the recognition of the autonomy of non-governmental organizations. The regulatory oversight was directed at ensuring legal compliance and accountability; it was not intended to restrict autonomy. The law aimed to ensure protection against practices such as money laundering and fraud. No appeals against registration had been lodged during this period. Eighty-six per cent of eligible non-governmental organizations had submitted applications. The State remained committed to administering the framework consistently, and ensuring regulatory functions were exercised within the limits established within the Constiution and applicable laws.
There were several reasons that cases could delay before they went to trial. There were effective complaints mechanisms, including through the Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman’s Office. Significant resources had been put towards ensuring juveniles were detained separately. There were guidelines to ensure that court systems were not formal or scary for the juveniles, taking into account that they were children. The head of the Judicial Services Commission was headed by the Chief Justice, with most members elected by their peers. The Ombudsman was also a member. Leadership of the courts were appointed by the President, in consultation with the High Council and the Cabinet. The final appointment was confirmed by the Senate of Rwanda. The Legal Aid Fund required sufficient money and was currently under discussion. The Bar Association received a budget from the Government each year to assist the lawyers who undertook pro-Bono cases. Anyone who appeared before the court was required to have a lawyer; people could not self-represent.
No civilian could be tried by military courts if they committed a crime independently. Pegasus was not used by Rwanda and there was no evidence that the State had used this technology against anyone. Regarding the cases referred to by the Committee, these were still ongoing, meaning they could not be discussed. One of the cases raised pertained to rehabilitation, where the courts concluded that rehabilitation requirements were not fulfilled. In any case of disappearance, the file was not easily closed and remained open to receive further information.
The Batwa community could be found across the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and in Rwanda. In Rwanda, everyone spoke the same language. There was no language dedicated for Batwa in Rwanda, although this could change in different countries. There was also no region dedicated for Batwa.
Indigenous communities close to national parks were able to decide on projects which were beneficial to them. They needed to receive benefits from the proceeds of the natural resources, so that they could be involved in the protection of the land. A law on insurance had been introduced, stipulating benefits in the case where animals destroyed people’s plants and livelihoods.
It was important to respect cases when they were still ongoing, and not to try and influence the outcomes of the case. A 2025 communication had been sent to the Government office by the United Nations Special Rapporteur who expressed concern at the arrest of Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, a prominent political leader in Rwanda who had been wrongly imprisoned in the country for five years. This was incorrect. The Rwandan court believed that the accused had not met the standards required to be released. The judgement by the African Court painted a different picture and had been mischaracterised.
Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including if Rwanda had requested information related to the mapping report and followed up on the alleged crimes; how the State ensured closing places of religion did not lead to a denial of the right to practice religion; if there were accessible remedies in place to challenge the decisions of the Government board; if the Committee could respond to concrete allegations that Batwa had been evicted from their national land, without any consultation; the number of civilians tried before military courts in recent years; issues relating to privacy and surveillance; measures adopted to ensure that the critical demonstrations against the Government could go ahead without fear of reprisals; and steps taken to limit restrictions of freedom of expression.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the neighbourhood watch was a voluntary programme organised by the community. No one was obliged to participate in the night patrols, and there was no criminal charge. Everyone paid fees every month to the watch. The requirements relied upon for the temporary closures of prayer houses were not new. There had been extensive consultation and sensitisation activities before the 2024 inspections, with meetings held at all levels to discuss compliance. The board had written to umbrella organizations requesting information on their places of worship and reiterating the need to comply with requirements.
Any administrative decisions which affected religious organizations remained subject to review under the law. As of now, no non-governmental organizations had been rejected for registration. The fact that an organization expressed different views from public authorities did not mean registration was rejected. It was only based on legitimate evidence of activities which endangered the population. The 2019 law gave exclusive powers to the Prosecutor General on authorising an interception.
The Media Commission ensured journalists could have access to legal assistance when they were involved in cases; 32 issues had reached the prosecution stage.
Closing Statements
EMMANUEL UGIRASHEBUJA, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda, head of the delegation, thanked the Committee Experts for their engagement and cooperation. The dialogue had provided a valuable opportunity to present Rwanda’s progress since the previous review and reflect on areas requiring further attention. The State party looked forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding remarks, which would guide State policies moving forward.
CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chairperson, thanked the Rwandan delegation for presenting its report and for the constructive dialogue. The Committee acknowledged the State party’s rebuilding efforts post conflict, and challenges to implement the Covenant in this context. While there had been positive developments, the Committee remained concerned about several areas, including gender-based violence, the rights of minority groups, and the right to freedom of assembly. Mr. Soh expressed gratitude to Rwanda for travelling to Geneva and engaging constructively in the dialogue.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CCPR26.012E