CAT/C/61/D/747/2016 relied on M.’s testimony against him, which had been obtained under torture and later withdrawn, lacks substantiation. According to the trial court’s decision, M.Y. initially confessed that he had committed the crime, while later he claimed that it had been committed by the complainant and subsequently withdrew his accusation. The trial court considered that M.Y. had withdrawn his testimony fearing reprisals from the family. The court referred to M.Y.’s medical certificate of 20 November 1988, according to which there were no torture marks on his body. Therefore, the Swiss asylum authorities considered that the complainant’s allegations that he, M.Y. and S.Y. had been tortured lacked credibility. In the 22 June 2015 decision, the trial court established that the penalty imposed on the complainant was not subject to a statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Swiss asylum authorities considered that the complainant’s statement that he had been working in the cotton field in Suruç village when A.Y. was murdered not to be credible, since he provided contradictory accounts at asylum interviews. The State party further submits that there has been no case of Turkey requesting extradition on common-law charges for the purpose of political persecution. 4.8 The State party notes that extraditions between Switzerland and Turkey are governed by the European Convention on Extradition of 1957, to which they are parties. Under this Convention, the parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in the Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order (art. 1). Extradition shall not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested party as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or if the requested party has substantial grounds for believing that a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons (art. 3). Switzerland considers its obligations under the European Convention on Extradition in the light of its human rights obligations. Under article 2 of the Federal Law on International Cooperation in Extradition Matters of 20 March 1981, Switzerland would reject an extradition request if there were grounds to believe that the procedure in the receiving party was in breach of the requirements under the European Convention on Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; aimed at prosecuting persons for their political opinions or on other discriminatory grounds, or risked aggravating their situation; or had other serious defects. If there are serious grounds to believe that the person would be exposed to a risk of ill-treatment if extradited, diplomatic assurances allow this risk to be eliminated or reduced by allowing extradition under certain conditions, for instance the commitment of the requesting State to ensure visits of detainees without notice by representatives of the Swiss Embassy; to provide them unrestricted access to lawyers and medical care; and to ensure their right to visits from relatives. Regarding extraditions to Turkey, the State party does not in principle request diplomatic assurances but can do so in more sensitive political cases. It has a long-standing practice of cooperation in extradition matters with Turkey and the Federal Office of Justice has no record of cases where Turkey has violated the principle of speciality or human rights. The complainant has not disputed this. 4.9 The State party specifies that the diplomatic assurances provided by Turkey are as follows: The conditions of detention of the prosecuted person would not be inhuman or degrading and would comply with the requirements of article 3 of the [European Convention on Human Rights]. The person’s physical and psychological integrity would be respected. The person’s conditions of imprisonment would not be aggravated for reason of his belonging to a social group or on grounds of race, religion or ethnicity. The person’s health condition would be given due consideration, including through appropriate medical supervision. The person will have the right to unlimited and confidential contacts with his lawyer, chosen or appointed. The person will have the right to visits in detention. The Turkish authorities would not prosecute the person on political grounds in relation to his conviction or impose a penalty for this reason. The penalty imposed for the 8