CAT/C/56/D/671/2015 whereas a bilateral treaty between two States is of much lesser scope both in principle and pertinence. 7.2 On 28 September 2015, the complainant contested the State party’s observations both on admissibility and the merits. He reiterated his argumentation concerning the admissibility of the complaint, pointing out again that his application to the European Court had been rejected on procedural grounds and that the United States authorities had not investigated his claims of torture and mistreatment in the United States prisons. He also reiterated that the police, the prosecution and the Ministry of Justice of the State party did not responded to his numerous requests to utilize the mutual legal assistance treaty in order to ask their United States counterparts for assistance in the investigation regarding the antiSemitic death threats he had received by post from the United States. 7.3 The complainant submits that the combination of official court documents he filed in the United States and the death threats that the State party refused to investigate should justify a finding of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. He claims that he is a member of a visible minority, namely, a Chassidic Jew. He objects to the State party’s submission that he had not substantiated the personal risk of being subject to torture and maintains that he was the victim on multiple occasions of gang rape, sodomy and oral rape. He notes that, as a victim of rape, he is in need of protection in order to prevent even a remote possible chance of re-victimization. Moreover, in a prison population dominated by white supremacists, the Aryan brotherhood and Muslim brotherhood, there is a high probability of him being re-victimized. The complainant claims that he was a victim of brutality by prison staff. He submits that, having being raped multiple times, he is scarred for life and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He claims he will be deprived of his medication for treatment of panic attacks (Benzodiazepines) and that withdrawal from this can be fatal. He questions the assurances given by the Attorney’s Office on behalf of the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons, which is independent and will contest the use of “non-formulary” drugs, even if ordered by a judge, and claims that the appeal proceedings can last between 6 and 12 months. 7.4 Furthermore, the complainant reiterates his claims of torture and having spent 13 months in solitary confinement, which he states constituted “revenge by extended isolation”. He objects to the State party’s position that solitary confinement is not a torture in itself. The complainant claims to be on a target list of the Aryan brotherhood and that sometimes prison staff are also members of that group. In summary, he concludes that his life would be in danger if he is extradited. Additional submissions by the parties 8.1 On 19 October 2015, the State party informed the Committee that it had decided to execute the extradition of the complainant to the United States, arguing that its laws did not allow the extradition to be postponed further and, accordingly, the Committee’s request dated 7 April 2015 for interim measures could not be complied with any longer. The State party reiterated its previous submissions. It assured the Committee that there were no grounds to believe that the complainant would face a risk of torture upon his extradition to the United States. Moreover, the State party pledged to monitor the complainant’s situation on regular intervals and to file reports with the Committee on the complainant’s well-being. 8.2 On 21 October 2015, the complainant submitted that the execution of his extradition has been approved by the State party and was therefore imminent. 8.3 On 26 October 2015, the State party further submitted that the complainant had been extradited on 23 October 2015. It also noted that the United States authorities reaffirmed their guarantees not to expose the complainant to any treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 10