Advance unedited version CAT/C/67/D/857/2017 2.20 On 4 December 2017, the complainant submitted a request for interim measures to the European Court on Human Rights dated, which was denied on 6 December 2017.4 The complaint 3. At the time of submission of communication the complainant claimed that his extradition to Turkey would constitute a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention since in Turkey he had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for a politicallymotivated crime based on his confession extorted under torture. He claimed that the risk of torture and ill-treatment now is even higher in Turkey after the attempted military coup in July 2016, as those who are believed to be politically opposing the current regime have been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, incommunicado detention, and held in inhumane conditions in Turkish overcrowded prisons. Additional information from the complainant 4.1 On 19 June 2018, the complainant submitted additional information with regard to his legal proceedings in Serbia, his asylum procedure and extradition to Turkey. He provided translated copies of a number of procedural documents. The complainant also claimed that his extradition would violate article 3, in conjunction with article 15 of the Convention, because the Serbian authorities failed to take into consideration that his sentence in Turkey was based on a confession extorted by torture. 4.2 On 4 December 2018, the complainant appealed the 1 December decision of the High Court in Šabac to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad. In the appeal, the complainant reiterated that due to lack of appropriate translation, the first instance court could not establish the facts of the case against him properly and completely, that he was subjected to prosecution in Turkey on political grounds, that his asylum proceedings were still ongoing, and asked the appellate court to return his case for examination to the first instance court. 4.3 On 8 December 2018, the Appellate Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad submitted its own motion to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad where it stated that even though the first instance court had secured an adequate interpreter for the last court hearing, however it had not acted in line with the instructions of the second instance court related to translation of the documents submitted by Turkey, and proposed to quash the first instance decision and to send the case back to the High Court in Šabac. 4.4 On 14 December 2017, the Appellate Court in Novi Sad held an appeal hearing during which the complainant’s lawyer submitted the Committee’s note verbal, along with its Serbian translation, requesting the State party to refrain from removing the complainant to Turkey. However, the appellate court upheld the decision of the High Court in Šabac to extradite the complainant. In its decision, the appellate court stated that despite the Committee’s request to refrain from removing the complainant to Turkey, the extradition in this case is regulated by the provision of article 3(1) of the European Convention on Extradition as well as provisions of Art 3(1) of the Treaty between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Turkey on Extradition. The court held that an extradition would not be allowed if the person whose extradition is requested enjoys asylum on the territory of the requested state, and that in accordance with article 7(4) of the Law on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, it is up to the Minister of Justice of Serbia and not the courts to decide if an extradition is requested for a political offence or not. 4.5 On 15 December 2017, the Minister of Justice rendered a decision stating that extradition of the complainant to Turkey was permitted under the Law on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and that the courts had established that the offence for which the extradition was requested represented a criminal offence also in the Serbian legislation, namely a conspiracy for unconstitutional activity. The complainant notes that the Minister of Justice did not consider the issue whether the offence in question was a political crime and 4 The complainant never submitted a full application to the European Court of human rights and no application appears to have been registered by the Court.