CAT/C/66/D/846/2017 real or perceived affiliation to the Hizmet movement. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, Turkey gave assurances that the complainant’s rights would be respected in accordance with the international instruments it has ratified. However, no explanation was given as to how the State party had assessed the risk of torture that the complainant faced in order to ensure that he would not be at risk of treatment that violated article 3 of the Convention upon his return to Turkey. The Committee recalls that the primary aim of the Convention is to prevent torture, not to ensure the right to redress for torture once it has occurred.23 8.11 In the light of the above, and having regard to the complainant’s profile as a perceived or actual member of the Hizmet movement, the Committee considers that the State party should have conducted an individualized assessment of the real and personal risk to which the complainant would be exposed in Turkey, particularly bearing in mind the documented treatment by the Turkish authorities of persons related to this movement, rather than base its decision on the assumption that an extradition request had been made in accordance with an agreement between the two countries and that the offences for which the complainant has been accused are offences under ordinary law that are also covered by Moroccan criminal law. The Committee also considers that article 721 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically mention the risk of torture and illtreatment in the event of extradition, but only the risk of aggravating the personal situation of individuals who are the subject of extradition requests for reasons related to their race, religion, nationality or political opinions when the offence for which extradition is requested is considered by the State party to be political or related to such an offence. 24 The Committee concludes that, in this case, the Court of Cassation’s evaluations do not make it possible to discount the argument that the complainant can be said to face a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being subjected to torture if he is extradited to Turkey, which would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.25 9. The Committee, acting pursuant to article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the complainant’s extradition to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee is of the view that, pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, the State party has an obligation to: (a) Ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future, by carrying out individual assessments of the real risk of torture and ill-treatment – including consideration of the general human rights situation in the country of return – every time it considers an extradition request under an agreement or as part of extradition proceedings; (b) Refrain from extraditing the complainant to Turkey and consider the request for the complainant’s extradition to Turkey in the light of its obligations under the Convention, which include an assessment of the risk of torture in the event of extradition, and this decision. In view of the fact that the complainant has been in pretrial detention for almost two years, the State party has an obligation to release him. 11. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken in response to this decision. 23 24 25 12 Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.5. See footnote No. 1. See H.Y. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/61/D/747/2016), para. 10.7. GE.19-10782