CAT/C/55/D/554/2013 14 June 2013 and 26 July 2013. A third appeal, filed on 26 June 2013, was pending before the Regional Court at the time of submission of the complaint. 2.4 On 21 May 2013, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation formally requested the extradition of the complainant. By a resolution of 23 May 2013, the Deputy Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan granted the extradition request on the basis of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (the Minsk Convention). 2.5 On 20 June 2013, the complainant appealed the Deputy Prosecutor General’s decision to the Uralsk City Court, providing details of his previous torture and expressing his fear of torture or death in the event of his extradition. On 21 June 2013, the City Court rejected the appeal, having not found any grounds to overturn the extradition decision and stating, inter alia, that the complainant had not informed the police about his alleged torture, and had applied for asylum only after the extradition decision concerning him had been made. On 1 July 2013, the complainant appealed the decision of the City Court to the West Kazakhstan Regional Court. He provided details of his previous abduction and torture and stated that the marks of torture, including broken bones, were still visible on his body. He referred to article 532 (1) (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Kazakhstan, which prohibits the extradition of a person who faces a risk of being subjected to torture in the country where he is returned. He also reiterated that the criminal charges against him had been fabricated and referred in this regard to the different dates on two identical documents concerning his registration on a wanted list in the Russian Federation. He also claimed that the documents provided by the Russian authorities concerning his alleged criminal activities did not contain any concrete dates, names or details. He referred to the principle of non-refoulement in the Convention, claimed that the authorities had to take into account the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country when making a decision on extradition, and provided the Court with articles confirming a practice of abductions and torture in Ingushetia. The complainant also referred to the request by the Committee not to extradite him while his case was pending before the Committee. His appeal was rejected on 9 July 2013. 2.6 On 6 May 2013, 13 May 2013, 24 May 2013, 13 June 2013, and 24 June 2013, the complainant applied for asylum to the Immigration Police Service of the West Kazakhstan Regional Department of the Interior. His applications were rejected without being considered on the merits because they did not meet formal requirements, the copy of his passport was not readable and the complainant had not undertaken the necessary medical examination. The complaint 3. When submitting the communication, the complainant claimed that his extradition to the Russian Federation would be in violation of articles 3 (1), 6 and 7 (3) of the Convention. He claimed that the situation in Ingushetia was unstable and that there was a practice of abductions, torture and fabrication of criminal charges. This practice, taken together with his previous abduction and torture, would put him at a risk of torture and death. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 28 August 2013, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint, noting that the complainant had not appealed against the rejection of his asylum request by the Immigration Police Service. It also stated that the complainant’s allegations about a risk of torture upon extradition had not been confirmed by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kazakhstan and that the complainant had never raised claims of torture either at the time of apprehension or during his detention. He also had not complained about any health-related 4