CAT/C/47/D/327/2007 and asked that the details of his allegations of torture not be revealed to the Mexican authorities. On 18 October 2007, the complainant, with the backing of a letter from the State party to the judge concerned, requested a transfer to the prison in the State of Aguascalientes. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint 5.1 On 5 February 2008 and 20 August 2008, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. According to the State party, the communication should be declared inadmissible because the complainant had neither demonstrated a prima facie violation of article 3 of the Convention nor sufficiently supported his allegation that he ran a serious and personal risk of being tortured if extradited to Mexico. The State party emphasized that the grounds for believing that the complainant was in danger of being subjected to torture if returned must go beyond mere theory or suspicion4 and that it must be established that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.5 The State party submitted that the complainant’s allegations of torture were connected with his arrest and questioning by the police in 1998, and that he had never claimed that he had been tortured in prison. The complainant had therefore apparently failed to establish that if he was extradited to complete his sentence and stand trial he would be questioned by the police, and would thus be in danger of being tortured in Mexican prisons. 5.2 The State party argued that it could not be deduced from the additional grounds submitted by the complainant, such as international reports on torture in Mexico and the charges he faced for his part in the murder of a prison guard, that he would run a personal risk of being tortured if extradited. It underlined that the international reports, including the latest concluding observations of this Committee,6 alluded to the problem of torture in police stations, but did not indicate that torture was endemic in the prison system. The State party also underlined that mechanisms for judicial and administrative review and for monitoring human rights7 existed and were applied when people served prison terms. Mexico had also ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recognized the competence of the corresponding Committee to examine individual complaints, therefore giving the complainant the option of lodging complaints against Mexico with either Committee. 5.3 The State party also submitted that the diplomatic assurances sufficed to eliminate the risk of torture. It pointed out that it had requested the following assurances of the Government of Mexico: that Mexico would take reasonable precautions to guarantee the safety of the complainant; that it would ensure that the complainant’s lawyer and officials of the Canadian embassy could visit the complainant at any reasonable time and that he could communicate with them at any reasonable time; that it would do everything possible to ensure that the complainant’s trial was held and completed without delay, and that any other complaint or request would be dealt with quickly. The State party emphasized that 4 5 6 7 See communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See communications No. 36/1995, X. v. The Netherlands, views adopted on 8 June 1996, para. 7.2; No. 15/1994, Kahn v. Canada, views adopted on 15 November 1994, para. 12.2; and No. 13/1993, Mutombo v. Switzerland, views adopted on 27 April 1994, para. 9.3. CAT/C/MEX/CO/4, adopted on 21 November 2006. When it ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Government of Mexico established the National Human Rights Commission, which has the power to investigate instances of human rights violations, including torture. 5