CAT/C/49/D/346/2008 5.6 The State party also recalls that on 26 February 2008, the Monegasque Court of Appeal, sitting in chambers, requested that it be provided with full information on the complainant’s earlier appeals against his conviction in Brazil and requested assurances from the Brazilian Government that the appeal would be considered in adversarial proceedings should the complainant be extradited on the basis of the arrest warrant. In response, the Brazilian authorities, in a note verbale dated 20 February 2008, confirmed that all appeals submitted to the Brazilian judiciary were examined in adversarial proceedings and that Brazil undertook to examine any appeals filed by the complainant, including appeals against his conviction. 5.7 The State party considers that the Committee’s refusal and, prior to that, the refusal by the European Court of Human Rights to grant interim measures in this case also demonstrate the unfounded nature of the complainant’s argument regarding the risk of torture or ill-treatment. It recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the complainant must prove that he would be at risk of being subjected to torture, that there are serious reasons for believing that this risk exists, and that the complainant is personally and currently at risk.8 With regard to the complainant’s claim that he runs a personal risk for political reasons because, more than 10 years after the events in question, he is still considered to be public enemy No. 1 and that he would be in danger because he has incriminating information in his possession, the State party considers these assertions to be no more than theories, suspicions and suppositions, since no evidence has been submitted by the complainant in support of his argument. 5.8 Moreover, the fact that the complainant was filmed in handcuffs during his transfer from prison to the court in Brazil, although humiliating, is not serious enough to qualify as ill-treatment. Yet these are the only instances of humiliation of which the complainant makes mention. The State party adds that, with regard to the age of the complainant and his state of health, which he describes as poor, the complainant has not shown that he cannot receive adequate medical treatment in the prison where he is being held in Brazil. Nor has the complainant demonstrated that he does not receive adequate protection from the Brazilian authorities. The State party notes that, since he was extradited to Brazil in midJuly 2008, the complainant has not reported any acts of torture or serious ill-treatment. 5.9 The complainant has therefore failed to advance any arguments or evidence which demonstrate that the legal extradition procedures carried out by the State party in accordance with the principles of international law placed him at a personal, real and foreseeable risk of torture or ill-treatment in Brazil. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 6.1 In comments dated 30 June 2009, the complainant does not mention the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication but comments only on its merits. 6.2 The complainant challenges the argument made by the State party at the time, according to which he would not be at risk as defined under article 3 of the Convention if he were extradited to Brazil. He claims that he provided sufficient evidence of that risk in his initial submission and in the course of his appeals before domestic courts. The complainant recalls what he describes as the undeniably political nature of the case, since it was seen as an affair of State in Brazil involving a financial scandal in which some of the authorities holding office at the time could be implicated. 8 GE.13-40769 The State party refers, in particular, to the Committee’s decision regarding communication No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, adopted on 16 November 2005, paras. 8.3 and 8.5. 7