CAT/C/66/D/846/2017 considered to be political in nature or related to a political offence. The State party adds that it consistently denies extradition requests when the conditions set out in article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are met. It claims that the complainant never invoked before the Court of Cassation his fear of being persecuted or tortured if extradited to his country of origin. The complainant adds that the State party’s Court of Cassation did not apply article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it failed to verify the political nature of the request for the complainant’s extradition. Moreover, the Turkish case file relating to the extradition shows that there is a glaring discrepancy between the unfounded evidence cited by Turkey3 and the serious terrorism-related charges. The complainant considers that this clear and significant discrepancy alone should prompt the State party to give greater consideration to the complainant’s allegations and seriously question the disguised nature of the extradition request. Evaluating such a discrepancy would be very much within the spirit of article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, before the Court of Cassation, the complainant very clearly expressed his fear that he would be persecuted if he was extradited to his country. For example, in the defence brief presented to the court on 13 September 2017, the complainant stated that he had submitted an application for asylum to the UNHCR office in Morocco, as he considers his fear of persecution if he returns to his country to be well-founded. 5.4 As for the State party’s assertion that its national legislation adequately provides for the implementation of the principles of the Convention, the complainant states that he is not claiming to have been tortured, or to be at risk of being tortured, by the authorities of the State party. He reaffirms that the authorities of the State party have failed to comply with their obligations under article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 3 of the Convention, thereby contributing to his extradition and, as a result, to the likelihood that he would be tortured. 5.5 In response to the argument that the Court of Cassation, as a court ruling on the question of extradition, is not competent to rule on the scope of evidence contained in the extradition request, the complainant submits that, even if the Court of Cassation is not competent to legally assess the scope of the evidence contained in the extradition request, it nonetheless has full leeway and legal competence to evaluate the evidence in relation to the other elements of the case, in accordance with article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 3 of the Convention. The Court of Cassation has the right to consider the underlying reasons for the request to extradite the complainant and to take concrete steps in order to arrive at an informed decision. 5.6 In the light of the law declaring a state of emergency, promulgated on 21 July 2016 by Turkey, acting as a sovereign State, the State party submits that the Court of Cassation considered to be without legal foundation the complainant’s contention that the Hizmet movement is not a terrorist association. In addition, the Court of Cassation, as a court ruling on the question of extradition, is not competent to rule on the legality of Turkish law. The complainant, for his part, considers that the Court of Cassation, which includes judges, legal practitioners and jurists, has the power to assess whether the law is just and consistent with the rules ensuring a fair trial, respecting, in particular, the right to a defence. 5.7 Pursuant to Decree-Law No. 667, which established the state of emergency, the maximum length of police custody was increased from 4 to 30 days, which automatically increases the risk of torture and ill-treatment. Furthermore, article 3 of Decree-Law No. 668 of 27 July 2016, which relates to investigation and prosecution procedures, provides that the right of a suspect to consult with counsel may be restricted for 5 days upon the decision of the prosecutor. The consequences of such a state of emergency should have been thoroughly evaluated by the State party, which would have been able to deduce that the complainant, as an alleged member of the Hizmet movement, which Turkey also calls the Fethullah Terrorist Organization, had no hope of receiving a fair trial in Turkey. Thus, in its report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) pointed out that over 3 6 Seizure from the complainant’s home of books by Fethullah Gülen that are accessible to the general public, having a lawful subscription to the Zaman newspaper, travelling outside his country and having an account at Bank Asya (along with 1.6 million other account holders worldwide). GE.19-10782