CAT/C/61/D/747/2016 extraditable offence cannot be increased or more severe than initially imposed. The Swiss Embassy in Ankara has the right to appoint representatives to visit the person at any time after the extradition, without surveillance, and the person has the right to unlimited contact with such representatives. 4.10 The State party disputes the complainant’s claim that the Swiss extradition authorities did not take into account the risk of torture established by the asylum authorities. First, in its 29 January and 19 February 2014 decisions, the Federal Office for Migration did not consider the diplomatic assurances provided by Turkey. Further to the inquiry by the Federal Office of Justice as to whether there was a risk that the complainant would be treated contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the State Secretariat for Migration responded that the complainant would be imprisoned to serve his sentence and that any ill-treatment could be excluded in the absence of aggravating circumstances or a political data sheet, and given that the offence was essentially apolitical and had been committed several decades ago and that the Turkish authorities had provided diplomatic assurances. The Swiss authorities would be able to monitor compliance with the assurances at any time. The asylum authorities could not rely on diplomatic assurances and therefore their assessment of risk could differ from the one made by the extradition authorities. The complainant’s extradition would be compatible with article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, notwithstanding the political and social developments in Turkey since July 2015, which did not have any link to the complainant’s personal situation. In the light of these elements, the extradition authorities discarded the assessment of the torture risk made by the asylum authorities. 4.11 The State party further submits that the complainant’s health issues on their own should not be considered as a risk that he would be subjected to torture if extradited. The complainant has not claimed that his health condition precluded extradition. According to a medical certificate issued by the psychiatric services of Bern University dated 3 May 2016, he is fit, both physically and mentally, to travel. His health condition should be taken into account in organizing the extradition. 4.12 The State party notes that the complainant failed to substantiate his allegation before the extradition authorities that he feared interrogation and torture in connection with his cousin’s arrest in March 2016 for founding and leading an illegal armed group. Therefore, the Federal Criminal Court decided not to conduct additional investigations. 4.13 In the light of the above, the State party submits that there are no serious grounds to believe that the complainant would be at a personal and real risk of torture should he be extradited to Turkey. Therefore, his extradition would not constitute a violation by Switzerland of its international obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 4.14 On 2 May 2017, the State party maintained its previous observations. It adds that the recent developments in Turkey have no connection with the case of the complainant, who faces extradition for a common-law criminal offence without any political context. Therefore, the recent developments have no bearing on his personal situation. 4.15 The State party recalls that the European Convention on Extradition remains in force for both Switzerland and Turkey. Therefore, Turkey is bound by the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Turkey has never violated diplomatic assurances in an extradition procedure. The State party refers to a case where an extradition request was granted after the attempted coup d’état in Turkey in July 2016 in relation to a convicted person who alleged having been tortured in detention because he supported the Kurdish cause. The extradition authorities were satisfied by diplomatic assurances from Turkey. The person concerned asked to be extradited, as there was an opportunity for release in Turkey. The State party emphasizes that the Federal Criminal Court twice expressed opposition to the extradition, asking the Federal Office of Justice to investigate the person’s allegations of torture and to assess the human rights situation in Turkey. In December 2016, the Court authorized the extradition. In February 2017, the Swiss Embassy in Turkey reported that the person had been placed under house arrest. 4.16 The State party stresses that, despite its long-standing cooperation with Turkey, all cases are assessed individually. The complainant’s case has been carefully examined by the asylum and extradition authorities. The State party underlines that the complainant’s 9