CAT/C/56/D/671/2015 1.3 On 3 June 2015, in accordance with rule 115 (3) of its rules of procedure, the Committee decided to examine the admissibility of the complaint together with its merits. Facts as presented by the complainant 2.1 The complainant is a legal resident of Hungary and has a Hungarian wife and a twoyear-old child. He owns property and shares in several companies. On 21 March 2012, an international arrest warrant was issued by the United States against the complainant for the criminal offences of fraud, money laundering, forgery of private documents, obstruction of proceedings and making false statements to official authorities. 2.2 The complainant was arrested on 15 February 2014 in Budapest and placed under extraordinary detention until 17 February 2014, when the Metropolitan Court of Budapest ordered his “temporary extradition arrest”; an ordinary detention of extradition (extradition detention) was ordered 59 days later. 2.3 On 20 February 2014, the complainant filed an application for asylum to the Office of Immigration and Nationality of Hungary, requesting that the rule of non-refoulement prevails. The grounds of the request were that, in the event of his extradition to the United States and imprisonment there, he would be subjected to rape, other types of sexual assaults and physical harm by inmates occurring in correlation with his Jewish faith. In addition, the complainant alleged that, during his earlier imprisonment in six different penitentiary institutions from 2006 to 2010, he was raped 6 times, subjected to other sexual abuse at least 10 times and assaulted 25 times. The prison staff or other competent authorities did not take any measures to protect him, except to place him in a small room without windows for 13 months. As a result of those actions, the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.2 2.4 On 30 May 2014, his request for asylum and non-refoulement was rejected by the Office of Immigration and Nationality, on the basis of information provided by the United States Embassy in Budapest. According to that information, every assault against him had been duly investigated and the assaults in question had been found not to relate to the racist group “Aryan brotherhood” operating in prisons, since, while he was in the United States prisons, the complainant had not declared himself Jewish, but claimed to be Catholic. 2.5 The complainant challenged that decision by appealing to the “competent Court of Administration and Labour Affairs”, claiming that the Office of Immigration and Nationality had based its decision unilaterally on the information provided by the United States Embassy and had not taken into consideration the documents he had provided. The Court rejected the complainant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality. 2.6 Within the extradition proceedings (see para 2.2 above), on 11 August 2014, the Metropolitan Court decided that the legal requirements for extradition had been met for the offences of fraud, money laundering and forgery of private documents, but not in respect of giving false evidence. The complainant notes that he claimed that the rule of speciality would be violated by the fact that, according to United States practice, in the sentencing 2 The complainant provided as evidence several psychiatrists’ reports, the most recent one dated 2 April 2015; statements of Rabbi David Goldstein, a prison chaplain in the state of Texas, who provided religious guidance and counselling to him; a statement by Douglas McNabb, an attorney at law, who confirmed that the complainant had alleged on several occasions that he had been sexually assaulted and that his complaints had gone “unchallenged” (on the basis of the review of the United States court docket sheet); and copies of several complaints to the judicial authorities in several states concerning threats and sexual assaults. 3