CAT/C/66/D/846/2017 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it cannot examine any individual’s complaint without ascertaining whether he or she has exhausted all available domestic remedies, although this rule does not apply where remedy procedures exceed a reasonable length of time 6 or are unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant did not refer, before the Court of Cassation, to the risk of persecution or torture in the event of his extradition to Turkey. However, it also notes that the complainant was brought before the Court of Cassation, where he objected to his extradition, alleging, inter alia, that he would be in danger if extradited, that he was the subject of political persecution for his alleged membership of the Hizmet movement, described as a terrorist organization, and that he had applied for refugee status for those reasons. In the view of the Committee, the fact that the complainant made these arguments before the Court of Cassation is sufficient to consider that he did effectively invoke the risks in question. 7 It notes that the State party has not claimed that other domestic remedies were available to the complainant. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 7.3 Having found no other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee finds that the complaint is admissible under article 22 of the Convention with respect to the alleged violation of article 3, and proceeds to consider it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the extradition of the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 (1) of the Convention, not to extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee recalls, first and foremost, that the prohibition against torture is absolute and non-derogable and that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture.8 The principle of non-refoulement of persons to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture, set out in article 3 of the Convention, is similarly absolute. 9 8.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the alleged victim would be in danger of being subjected to torture, the Committee recalls that, under article 3 (2) of the Convention, States parties must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the State of return. In the present case, the Committee must determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture if he is extradited to Turkey. The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture on 6 7 8 9 GE.19-10782 See Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), para. 12.2. See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 34. See the Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, para. 5. See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 9. 9