CAT/C/67/D/857/2017 Advance unedited version whether the complainant was at risk of torture, or was tortured and convicted on the basis of the statement tainted by torture. 4.6 By letter of 14 December 2017, the complainant’s lawyer informed the Ministry of Interior, the Police Directorate and the Border Police administration that on 11 December 2017 the Committee issued interim measures in the complainant’s case, and that removing the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of the State party’s international obligations. The same letter was submitted to Ministry of Justice on 18 December 2017. Despite this, the complainant was extradited to Turkey on the night of 25 December 2017. 4.7 With regard to his asylum proceedings, the complainant submits that on 26 January 2017, he expressed his intention to seek asylum in the State party. On 9 May 2017, he submitted his formal asylum request, and an asylum interview was conducted on 2 August 2017. During his interview, the complaint gave detailed account of his political activity prior to his arrest, his arrest and torture in 2011, his sentencing in Turkey, and his escape from Turkey. He also submitted copies of correctly translated documents from the Turkish case against him, and their legal analysis, which showed that the complainant’s confession was the sole evidence used for his conviction. The complainant also submitted the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on his case, and reports by various international organizations between 1989 and 2017, which showed that torture has been widely used by the Turkish authorities during that period. 4.8 The complainant requested the Asylum Office to examine his application on the merits without automatic application of the ‘safe third country’ concept, so the authorities could examine the risk of torture in the country of origin. However, on 22 September 2017, the Asylum Office refused the complainant’s asylum application stating that Montenegro should be responsible for his asylum. The Asylum Office held that since Montenegro, as a state that the asylum-seeker entered the Republic of Serbia from directly, is on the list of safe third countries based on a decision of the Government of the Republic of Serbia of 17 August 2009, and that it consequently represents a state which abides by the refugee protection principles contained in the 1951 Convention on Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol on Status of Refugees, there were valid grounds for dismissal of the asylum application based on article 33(1.6) of the Law on Asylum.5 4.9 On unknown date, the complainant appealed the decision of the Asylum Office to the Asylum Commission. On 22 November 2017, the Asylum Commission denied the appeal on the grounds that Montenegro signed and ratified numerous treaties on human rights, and has been implementing them in practice achieving international standards, which meant that it was a safe third country for the complainant. 4.10 The complainant submits that he was extradited to Turkey before he was able to appeal the decision of the Asylum Commission to the Administrative court. The domestic law allows for an appeal to be submitted to administrative court within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the Commission’s decision, however the complainant was extradited 14 days after the decision was delivered to his attorney. 4.11 The complainant claims that despite its reasoning, the Asylum Office knew that he would not be deported to Montenegro. 6 Therefore, the Asylum Office entrusted the extradition authorities to properly assess the risk of ill-treatment in Turkey before the complainant’s extradition, while the courts and Ministry of Justice have not even carried out an adequate translation of the complainant’s documents received from Turkey. 5 6 6 Article 33(1.6) of the Law on Asylum states that an asylum application would be dismissed without examination if established that the person seeking asylum has arrived from a safe third country unless proven that it is not safe. In its decision the Asylum Office wrote: “Bearing in mind that the applicant Ayaz Cevdet, national of Turkey, is in extradition detention in the District Prison in Šabac and that his leaving the territory of the Republic of Serbia depends on the decision of another state authority, the Asylum Office in this legal matter has not invoked Art 57(1) of the Law on Asylum stipulating that a foreigner whose asylum application has been refused or rejected, or whose asylum procedure has been suspended, and who does not reside in the country on some other grounds, shall be obliged to leave the Republic of Serbia within the time limit specified in that decision”.