CAT/C/56/D/671/2015 “recognizes the limitations imposed by the rule of specialty provision in article 17 of the extradition treaty with Hungary and will not be seeking a conviction of the person concerned on the charges in counts 4 and 5”. The State party submits that the United States authorities have “certified that the complainant will not be exposed to torture or any kind of ill-treatment” and provided the State party with a “legal assurance certifying the receipt of appropriate medical treatment should the complainant be imprisoned in the United States”.12 6.12 The State party further submits that the extradition treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hungary was signed on 1 December 1994 and promulgated by Act LXI of 1996. It points out that the extradition has been suspended on account of the interim measures ordered by the Committee and the complainant will be held in custody until 27 October 2015, in accordance with the final decision of the Appellate Court of Budapest. 6.13 The State party maintains that the detention of the complainant has the legitimate aim of enabling the State party to comply with its international obligations, namely, to surrender the person concerned to the United States. At the same time, the State party acknowledges that, despite the above-mentioned legitimate aim, no person shall be held in custody for an unlimited period of time. 6.14 The State party submits that, without prioritizing any of its obligations under international law that seem to collide in the present case, it will obey its obligations under the Convention and execute the decision of the Committee irrespective of its outcome should the Committee deliver its decision before the expiration of the deadline for the complainant’s release, namely, 27 October 2015. However, if the Committee fails to reach a decision until the above-mentioned deadline, the State party will have no other choice but to extradite the complainant in compliance with the bilateral agreement. The State party states that it does not wish to compromise the extradition procedure by releasing the complainant despite the absence of a final decision of the Committee, or to secure the extradition procedure at the expense of breaching human rights norms and continuously keeping the complainant in detention for an unpredictable period of time. 6.15 For the reasons detailed above, the State party considers that the communication is without merit and the complainant’s removal to the United States would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant’s further comments 7.1 On 23 September 2015, the complainant submits that the State party has given an ultimatum to the Committee by stating that, if the Committee does not issue its decision by 27 October 2015, it will disregard the Committee’s request for interim measures and extradite the complainant to the United States. He notes that an international convention on human rights and specifically against torture constitutes jus cogens in international law, 12 The State party presents copies of the assurances, dated 9 October 2014 and 25 February and 5 March 2015, which (a) state that, in the event of his imprisonment, the location and conditions of the complainant’s incarceration will rest with the United States Bureau of Prisons; and (b) provide information about the functions of the above Bureau. The assurances also state that, should the complainant have any concerns while incarcerated, he should communicate those issues directly to his prison and to the Bureau and that, if necessary, the United States Attorney’s Office will assist by conveying any valid concerns that the complainant may demonstrate to the Bureau. They further state that the United States Attorney’s Office will seek to ensure that the complainant serves his prison sentence with appropriate accommodations to protect his well-being and religious practices. 9