CAT/C/46/D/419/2010 made public; and that Algeria then requested the State party to extradite the complainant to Algeria under an international arrest warrant. The Committee also observes that, according to the indictment of 7 October 2009 issued by the Assize Court of Constantine against M.K., Djamel Ktiti and four other co-accused, M.K. claimed to have made the statements under torture. The State party has not contested any of these allegations, nor has it provided any information concerning them in the comments it submitted to the Committee. 8.7 The Committee confirms that it is within the purview of the courts of the States parties to the Convention to assess the facts and evidence in a case. The appeal courts of States parties are responsible for reviewing the conduct of a trial, unless it can be established that the evidence was assessed in a patently arbitrary manner or one that amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The Committee notes in this case that, despite the complainant’s allegations highlighting the potential risks, the Supreme Court of Morocco did nothing to assess those risks but was content to base its decision to extradite on statements which, according to the complainant, were obtained under torture. In view of this evidence, which, furthermore, has not been refuted by the State party, the Committee concludes that the complainant’s extradition to Algeria would violate article 3 of the Convention. 8.8 Regarding article 15, the Committee considers that it is central to the case and closely linked to the questions raised under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the general nature of its provisions derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore implies an obligation for each State party to ascertain whether or not statements included in an extradition procedure under its jurisdiction were made under torture.4 In this case, the Committee notes that the statements made by M.K., on which the extradition request was based, were allegedly obtained under torture; that the results of such physical abuse were verified by M.K.’s brother; and that the indictment issued on 7 October 2009 by the Assize Court of Constantine against M.K. states that M.K. claimed to have confessed under torture. The Committee notes that the State party has neither refuted any of these allegations nor included any information on this question in its observations to the Committee. The Committee considers that the State party was under an obligation to verify the content of the author’s allegations that the statements made by M.K. had been obtained under torture, and that by not verifying them, and by using them as evidence in the extradition proceedings, the State party violated its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. The Committee thus concludes that the evidence submitted to it discloses a violation of article 15 of the Convention. 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the State party would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention if the complainant was extradited to Algeria. It further concludes that the facts brought to its attention constitute a breach of article 15 of the Convention. 10. Pursuant to rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests that the State party inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmission of the present decision, of the measures taken in response to this decision. It adds that because Djamel Ktiti has been in detention for 21 months despite no charges having been laid against him, the State party is obliged to release him or to try him should charges be brought against him. Referring to its most recent concluding observations, the Committee once again urges the State party to review its legislation in order to incorporate a provision prohibiting any 4 GE.11-43864 See communication No. 193/2001, P.E. v. France, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, paragraph 6.3 (CAT/C/29/D/193/2001). 7