CAT/C/55/D/554/2013 Additional information by the State party 8.1 On 25 April 2014, the State party informed the Committee that, owing to the expiration of the maximum one-year term of extradition detention, the General Prosecutor’s Office had decided to extradite the complainant to the Russian Federation. His further detention would have violated the Code of Criminal Procedure of Kazakhstan, while his release would have posed a threat to national security. 8.2 The State party assured the Committee that there were no grounds to believe that the complainant would face a risk of torture or ill-treatment upon his extradition. It also pledged to monitor the complainant’s situation upon his return, in cooperation with the authorities of the Russian Federation, and to provide the Committee with updated information on a regular basis. 8.3 The State party requested a meeting with the Committee members in order to share more detailed information on the case. 8.4 On 24 June 2014, the State party reiterated the information contained in its note verbale of 25 April 2014. Additional submissions by the parties 9.1 On 18 August 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. It reiterated the information provided in its observations on admissibility and stated that the allegations of the complainant concerning a risk of torture upon extradition had not been corroborated by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The State party concluded that the complaint should be dismissed as insufficiently substantiated under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 9.2 Furthermore, the State party stated that the complainant’s extradition had been suspended for the maximum possible period, at the request of the Committee. However, in view of the expiration of the maximum extradition detention allowed under the law and the State party’s obligations under the Minsk Convention, the Prosecutor General’s Officer had decided to extradite the complainant. 9.3 On 5 October 2014, the complainant’s counsel commented on the additional observations of the State party and informed the Committee that the complainant had been extradited on 24 April 2014, while an appeal in his asylum case was ongoing. That appeal, dated 11 April 2014, had been rejected by the Court No. 2 of Uralsk on 4 April 2014, then by the West Kazakhstan Regional Court, acting as the appeal court, on 24 June 2014, and finally by the West Kazakhstan Regional Court, acting as the court of cassation, on 4 September 2014. 9.4 The complainant’s counsel claimed that the State party had failed to consider the complainant’s allegations of his previous abduction and torture, despite the evident marks on his body, and had ignored his claims concerning the fabrication of criminal charges. He also claimed that the State party had violated the non-refoulement principle and had not taken into account the practice of human rights violations in Ingushetia, when taking its decision to extradite the complainant. He further claimed that the State party had failed to provide arguments to its claims that the complainant would pose a security threat if released. 9.5 The complainant’s counsel added that the State party had not provided any details of how it would monitor the complainant’s situation upon his extradition and expressed doubts about the possibility to conduct effective monitoring outside the State party’s jurisdiction. 6