CAT/C/67/D/857/2017 Advance unedited version Committee therefore concludes that the State party’s authorities have failed in their duty to carry out an individualized risk assessment before returning the complainant to Turkey. 9.9 The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that the State party failed to take into consideration that his prison sentence in Turkey was based on a confession extorted by torture due to the absence of adequately translated documents related to the complainant’s conviction in Turkey. The Committee also notes that based on the court’s request for a revised translation of the provided documents, the Ministry of Justice engaged a local certified Turkish translator to translate the documents. However, the Committee observes that the appeal submitted by the complainant to the Appellate court in Novi Sad on 4 December 2017 and the motion submitted by the Appellate Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad to the same court on 8 December 2017, indicate that at the time of the complainant’s extradition, the State party still hasn’t adequately translated the documents related to his conviction in Turkey. Thus, the Committee is of the view that the State party’s authorities failed to establish whether the complainant’s conviction was based on his own confession extorted by torture. 9.10 Taking into consideration the foregoing, the Committee concludes that, in this case, the State party’s removal of the complainant to Turkey constituted a violation of article 3 of the Convention. In light of this conclusion, the Committee will not consider any other complainant’s claims. 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the complainant’s extradition to Turkey constituted a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Regarding the State party’s lack of compliance with the Committee’s request of 11 December 2017 for interim measures for the complainant not to be extradited, and his forcible removal to Turkey on 25 December 2017, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the facts before it constitute a violation by the State party of article 22 of the Convention due to a lack of cooperation with the Committee in good faith, which prevented the Committee from considering the present communication effectively. 20 The Committee also notes that the State party failed to provide any sufficiently specific details as to whether it has engaged in any form of post-expulsion monitoring of the complainant, and whether it has taken any steps to ensure that the monitoring is objective, impartial and reliable. 11. The Committee considers that the State party has an obligation to provide redress for the complainant, including adequate compensation of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the physical and mental harm caused. It should explore ways and means of monitoring the conditions under which the complainant is in detention in Turkey in order to ensure that he is not subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, and inform the Committee as to the results of such monitoring. 12. The Committee urges the State party, in accordance with rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of this decision, of the steps taken in response to this decision. The Committee urges the State party to take steps to prevent similar violations of article 22 in the future and to ensure that, in cases where the Committee has requested interim measures, the complainants are not removed from the State party’s jurisdiction until the Committee has made a decision on a prospective application. 20 12 See Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia, para. 9.