CAT/C/66/D/846/2017 4.10 The Court of Cassation also considered the complainant’s claims that he has no relationship with the Hizmet movement and that this movement cannot be considered a terrorist organization. The Court recalled that Turkey is a sovereign State and that, under its law, the Hizmet movement is considered to be a terrorist organization that is accused of organizing the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. The State party further recalls that it is not within the Court of Cassation’s competence to review the legality of this law since its remit is limited to ensuring that the legality of the extradition proceedings is respected. It must therefore ensure that the acts that are the subject of the extradition request constitute offences under the Moroccan Criminal Code, i.e., in this case, the first paragraph of article 218-1. 4.11 The Court of Cassation considered unfounded the allegations that the conditions set out in article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been met and that the extradition was politically motivated. Article 27 (1) of the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance stipulates that extradition may not be granted if the offence for which it is requested is considered to be a political offence or is linked to political considerations. In the present case, the extradition request is intended for the prosecution of the complainant for membership of an armed terrorist group, which is not a political offence, but an offence under ordinary law. The complainant failed to prove to the Court of Cassation that the underlying reasons for the extradition request were issues of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. 4.12 The State party recalls that, as pointed out by the Court of Cassation, extradition proceedings are fundamentally different from proceedings for expelling foreign nationals who are residing unlawfully in the territory of the State party. 2 A State that does not recognize the principle of extradition does not waive its right to expel foreign nationals in general. Expulsion proceedings are initiated by the State in which the foreign national is residing and do not depend on the existence of a court decision issued by the State to which the person will be expelled. 4.13 As regards the complainant’s claim that the evidence underpinning the arrest warrant is based on testimonies obtained under duress, the State party notes that the Court of Cassation is not permitted to express an opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the person whose extradition is requested and that the competent Turkish judicial authorities scrupulously comply with the rules of fair trial and international instruments. This claim was therefore deemed inadmissible by the Court of Cassation. 4.14 In conclusion, the Moroccan authorities inform the Committee that, despite the Court of Cassation’s agreement to extradite the complainant, the extradition procedure has been suspended until the Committee has issued its decision regarding the case. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 26 May 2018, the complainant sent the Committee his comments in response to the State party’s observations of 19 December 2017 and 30 April 2018. 5.2 The complainant submits that his complaint does not relate to the procedure for his arrest in the territory of the State party or to article 29 of the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance, which is binding on the State party with respect to Turkey. His complaint relates to the judicial decision by the State party’s Court of Cassation and the procedural acts relating to extradition that would thus follow. In this regard, the complainant alleges that the State party has breached its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 5.3 The State party maintains that, under the ruling issued by the Court of Cassation, the acts for which the judicial authorities of the complainant’s country have requested his extradition are considered to be ordinary offences (terrorism offences), which are also offences under the Criminal Code of the State party, and that such offences cannot be 2 GE.19-10782 In its decision, the Court of Cassation considered that the extradition procedure was fundamentally different from the expulsion procedures provided for in article 29 of Act No. 02-03 on the entry and residence of foreign nationals in the Kingdom of Morocco and irregular emigration and immigration. The provisions relating to expulsion in that article are applied in cases of unlawful residence, and not in cases of offences committed in another country. 5