CAT/C/47/D/327/2007 The complaint 3.1 In his initial communication, the complainant claimed that his extradition to Mexico would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. He submitted that he would be exposed to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if extradited to Mexico, given that he had already been tortured by the Mexican authorities when he was arrested on 9 March 19982 and threatened with death by two police officers in the prison infirmary, and that independent medical opinions had vouched for the fact that he had been tortured. Moreover, he submitted that the seriousness of the crime with which he was charged, the fact that those responsible for committing the crime at the time of his escape had not been arrested and the prospect of being sent back to the prison from which he had escaped would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture in Mexico. 3.2 Moreover, the complainant underlined that diplomatic assurances from Mexico could not remove the risk of torture, especially as it was known that torture was systematic and endemic in Mexico and that the State of Mexico exercised little control over its security forces. He claimed that the uncertainty about the worth of the assurances only served to underline their ineffectiveness. 3 The complainant submitted that it was ingenuous to assume, as the assurances led to believe, that he would not be questioned about the two crimes that had not been dealt with in court, as those responsible still had not been arrested. He added that he was in a far more difficult position than in 1998, standing accused of a much more serious crime – one involving the death of a state official. State party’s observations on the measures taken to ensure observance of the diplomatic guarantees 4.1 On 28 September 2007, the State party provided an update on the measures taken to ensure that the Government of Mexico honoured its diplomatic guarantees. According to the State party, when the complainant arrived in Mexico on 17 August 2007, he was met by a consular official and informed of the services available to him. At that meeting, the complainant reportedly expressed concern about his safety, given that he was being sent back to the prison from which he had escaped. On 20 August 2007, consular officials asked the Human Rights Commission of the State of Zacatecas to send representatives to visit the complainant. After receiving a letter in which it was claimed that the complainant had been tortured on 19 August 2007, the State party contacted senior Mexican officials and the Zacatecas prison administration on 22 August 2007 to remind them that the diplomatic assurances must be respected. That same day, consular officials visited the complainant. During that visit, the complainant again claimed that he had been tortured, but did not wish to lodge a complaint. The consular officials saw no evidence of wounds. At the inquiry held by the Mexican authorities, the director of Zacatecas prison denied the complainant’s allegations of torture. 4.2 On 23 September 2007, the complainant was reportedly beaten by another inmate, but he stated that he had been properly treated for his wounds and that his assailant had been placed in solitary confinement. Subsequently, the State party asked the prison director for a report on the incident, as well as a medical report and an explanation of what measures had been taken to avoid a repetition of violence against the complainant. The State party emphasized, however, that the complainant did not wish to lodge a complaint 2 3 4 See communication No. 133/1999, Falcon Ríos v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2004, para. 8.6. See communication No. 233/2003, Agiza v. Sweden, decision adopted on 20 May 2005; see also Human Rights Committee communication No. 1416/2005, Alzery v. Sweden, Views adopted on 25 October 2006, paras. 11.4 and 11.5.