CAT/C/47/D/327/2007 6.2 The complainant pointed out that the State party had not considered whether Mexico could effectively control its security forces and so guarantee that its diplomatic assurances would be respected. The complainant noted that the assurances were vague and did not, for example, stipulate that he not be sent back to the same prison facility from which he had escaped. He also submitted that the State party had failed to enquire after his well-being before 20 August 2007, though it was aware of his concerns and of the risks entailed in being returned to the same prison facility from which he had escaped. Considering that Canadian embassy officials in Mexico were informed of his case only two days before his extradition and were unaware of the diplomatic assurances until that very day,11 the complainant challenged the assertion by the State party that it put in place a mechanism to ensure that Mexico would honour its diplomatic assurances. 6.3 The complainant submitted that on 17, 19 and 21 August 2007 two prison guards and the chief of security at Zacatecas prison had tortured him to avenge the death of their colleague, who had been killed at the time of his escape. They beat him on the back, shoved his head into a barrel of water as though to drown him, kept his head in a plastic bag until he collapsed and shoved chilli sauce into his nostrils. 12 Between his arrival at the Zacatecas prison on 17 August 2007 and 20 August 2007, the complainant was denied access to a telephone to contact anyone. Moreover, a telephone conversation between his sister and an embassy official on 20 August 2007 revealed that, in violation of the diplomatic assurances, the State party was unaware whether the complainant had access to a telephone. The complainant also submitted that it was only after a visit by consular officials on 22 August 2007 that the State party took steps to check on his safety. 6.4 According to the complainant, the extradition treaty between the State party and Mexico states explicitly in article III.1 that Canada is under no obligation to extradite its own nationals to Mexico, and the treaty allows Canada to try its own citizens for offences of which they are accused in Mexico. The complainant maintained that the State party took an unacceptable risk in extraditing him to Mexico, and so violated article 3 of the Convention. Additional comments by the State party 7.1 On 28 August 2009, the State party reiterated its previous observations. It stated that assessment of the risk of torture prior to the complainant’s extradition should not be confused with his allegations of ill-treatment once he was in the hands of the Mexican authorities. The State party maintained that it did not accept without reservation the truth of the allegations in the complainant’s affidavit of 21 March 2009, which were insufficiently substantiated because, in the absence of the complainant’s consent, neither the consular staff of the State party nor the staff of the Human Rights Commission of Zacatecas had been able to inquire into what had happened on 17, 19 and 21 August 2007. In addition, the State party submitted that, leaving aside the question of whether the allegations of torture contained in the complainant’s affidavit were true, at the time of the extradition proceedings it was reasonable to extradite the complainant to Mexico on the basis of the diplomatic assurances and the absence of a serious personal risk of the complainant being tortured. It stated that claims made after the extradition did not affect the legitimacy of the 11 12 The complainant bases his claim on an exchange of e-mails between embassy officials and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The complainant submitted an affidavit by a fellow inmate who reportedly saw the state in which the complainant was brought back to his cell on 17 August 2007. In it, he states that the complainant’s face was all red and that he saw that he was weeping. The complainant had been carried to the cell by two guards. The following day, he had reportedly called the complainant’s lawyer and sister to inform them of the treatment inflicted on the complainant. 7