A/HRC/17/2 (b) The compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/10/RWA/2); (c) The summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/10/RWA/3 and Corr.1). 267. At its 15th meeting, on 7 June 2011, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review of Rwanda (see section C below). 268. The outcome of the review of Rwanda comprised the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/17/4), the views of Rwanda concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, and its voluntary commitments and replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/17/4/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions, its voluntary commitments and the outcome 269. The delegation recalled that, during the review held in January 2011, Rwanda had accepted most of the recommendations and rejected three, stating that they were based on incorrect or false premises. Recommendation 81.1 had been rejected because there were no armed groups on Rwandan territory. Rwanda had a professional army, a professional police force and a professional correctional services force, all made up of adult men and women over the age of 18. This fact had been attested to by national, regional and international observers, who had participated in the selection of Rwandan forces for the international peacekeeping missions. The delegation stated that there was also a local defence force that provided security services to decentralized local administration units. The force had undergone deep reforms and was now a well-disciplined and respected force that contributed greatly to community development. 270. Recommendation 81.2 had been rejected because Rwanda was not a country where human trafficking took place. Preventive and precautionary measures had however been taken, including the signing of all international conventions against human trafficking and the criminalization of human trafficking in the Penal Code. Also, Rwanda had put in place a programme of community policing, which made human trafficking almost impossible in the country or transit through it. 271. Recommendation 81.3 had been rejected as the question of minority groups and indigenous people in Rwanda had often been misunderstood, confused or distorted by nonRwandans. All Rwandans were indigenous to Rwanda and no one had the right to arbitrarily state that Rwanda had indigenous and non-indigenous populations. Furthermore, there were marginalized and vulnerable groups, but these groups could not be called indigenous because they cut across and represented a broad spectrum of the Rwandan community. Also, social services policies and programmes on health, education, housing, employment and empowerment had been adopted to take care of these disadvantaged groups without any form of discrimination. 272. The delegation recalled that, during the review held in January 2011, responses to some recommendations had been deferred pending further consultations with other stakeholders. In this regard, the delegation indicated that recommendations in paragraphs 80.1 to 80.3 and 80.5 to 80.14 of the report were now accepted and were being implemented with the other recommendations initially accepted in January 2011. Recommendations 80.4, 80.15 and 80.16 were rejected. 273. With regard to recommendation 80.4, arbitrary arrests and detentions were prohibited in Rwanda and where such arrests and detentions did take place, corrective 124 GE.12-13630