CAT/C/47/D/327/2007 decision to extradite the complainant. Furthermore, the State party said that it had put in place a mechanism to check that the diplomatic assurances were being respected and had responded appropriately when the complainant alleged that he had been tortured. 7.2 With regard to the extradition process, the State party explained that the Department of Justice was initially responsible for extradition cases, and that once an extradition order was confirmed the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was responsible for following up the case abroad. The staff of the latter department therefore became involved in the case only from the time of the complainant’s extradition. In this instance, the State party maintains that the Canadian embassy in Mexico was duly informed of the complainant’s extradition on 15 August 2007. On 17 August 2007, the complainant was met by a consular official and given instructions so that he could communicate with the embassy. With regard to the complainant’s allegation that Canadian officials did not know whether he could receive telephone calls, the State party said that each prison had its own rules on making telephone calls and that, unless there were valid reasons for doing so, it was not for the consular officials to interfere with those procedures; telephone contact between the consular officials and the complainant was established on 20 August 2007. The State party also maintains that until they learned of a potential breach of the diplomatic assurances, the consular officials were not obliged to do more than maintain contact with the complainant. 7.3 The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the evaluation of the risks of torture prior to extradition is an exercise in projection and a decision resulting from it may not then be called into question as a result of subsequent unpredictable events.13 It submits that the fact that ill-treatment subsequently occurred means only that the State party’s actions to ensure the assurances were honoured could be called into question, not its decision to extradite the complainant in the first place. It recalls that the Minister of Justice had given due consideration both to the complainant’s allegations of torture in 1998 and to the official denial of those allegations by the Mexican authorities; he had also studied various reports claiming that violations of human rights in Mexico were frequent, as well as the experiences of other Canadians tried in Mexico. Lastly, he had also taken into account the fact that a prison guard had been killed during the complainant’s escape and the possibility that the prison authorities might seek revenge against the complainant. The Minister had been convinced that Mexico, given the importance it attached to respecting diplomatic relations and previous positive experience, would honour its diplomatic assurances. The conclusions of the Minister of Justice had been fully supported by the Court of Appeal. Additional comments by the complainant 8.1 In additional comments submitted on 29 September 2009, the complainant reiterates that, throughout the extradition process, he stood by his claim that he had been tortured in 1998 and that this has never been questioned by the Canadian authorities. 14 8.2 With regard to the extradition process, he also reiterates that Canadian officials in Mexico knew nothing about his case, as confirmed by the State party’s observations, according to which the embassy had been informed on 15 August 2007, just 48 hours before he was extradited. The complainant emphasizes that the State party itself admitted 13 14 8 See Agiza v. Sweden (footnote 3 above), para. 13.2; and communications No. 194/2001, I.S.D. v. France, decision adopted on 3 May 2005, para. 9.3; and No. 297/2006, Sogi v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2007, para. 10.6. The complainant cites the decision of the Court of Appeal, Boily v. Canada (Minister of Justice) 2007 QCCA 250, paras. 54 and 55.