CAT/C/58/D/682/2015 of the Convention if Mr. Alhaj Ali were extradited to the requesting State; to find that Mr. Alhaj Ali’s continued detention pending extradition lacks any legal basis; and, accordingly, to request the State party to release him immediately. Additional submission by the complainant 6.1 On 14 June 2016, the complainant submitted additional observations on the admissibility of the complaint. She notes that, according to the State party, Mr. Alhaj Ali never mentioned to the competent Moroccan authorities that handing him over to the Saudi authorities would put him at risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (para. 4.7 above); that he did not make any statement to that effect when he appeared before the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation in Rabat for the hearing of 17 December 2014; and that he has not presented an arguable case that he would face a risk of torture if handed over to the requesting authorities. 6.2 The complainant observes, first of all, that the memorandum prepared by Mr. Alhaj Ali’s lawyer to contest the legality of extradition was based primarily on the Riyadh Arab Agreement on Judicial Cooperation. The Agreement, however, does not contain any provisions establishing a risk of torture in the requesting State as a ground for rejecting an extradition request, rendering it contrary to the obligations of the two States parties under article 3 of the Convention, and Mr. Alhaj Ali has therefore based his defence mainly on the ne bis in idem principle. The complainant nevertheless notes that, as a subsidiary argument in his speech for the defence at the hearing of 17 December 2014 before the Court of Cassation, Mr. Alhaj Ali’s lawyer stated to the judges that extradition would put his client at risk of cruel treatment and “severe” punishment. In their decision, however, the judges did not mention all the arguments raised in the oral pleading. 6.3 The complainant adds that Mr. Alhaj Ali’s lawyer raised the argument again, and for the first time in writing, in an application for review sent to the Minister of Justice on 3 February 2015,13 in which he expressed his concern that Mr. Alhaj Ali “might be subjected to treatment that was cruel or inconsistent with human dignity or to inhuman punishment”. The application was rejected by the Minister. 6.4 The complainant recalls that, following his arrest, Mr. Alhaj Ali was taken to the Kenitra office of the Directorate-General of National Security, where, according to his testimony, his former Saudi sponsor (kafil) threatened him, in the presence of police officers, with death and with the “worst kind of torture” upon his return to Saudi Arabia. 6.5 Secondly, the complainant notes that Saudi judges may, by analogy, assimilate the offence of breach of trust, for which Mr. Alhaj Ali is being prosecuted in Saudi Arabia, to that of theft, which is punishable by corporal punishment or even amputation. According to the complainant, the State party authorities are not unaware of the high risk that Mr. Alhaj Ali, as a foreign national accused of breach of trust, faces of being subjected to such punishments. Indeed, Saudi criminal law is unwritten, which gives judges a significant degree of discretion. With regard to breach of trust, the complainant recalls that Saudi judges may use analogical reasoning (qiyas), as permitted in such cases under sharia law, to sentence defendants to the penalty for a similar offence such as theft — a fortiori in the case of foreign workers. 6.6 The complainant adds that, in its ruling of 31 December 2015, the Court of Cassation explicitly states that “the acts for which Abdul Rahman Alhaj Ali is being prosecuted in Saudi Arabia amount to a breach of trust, to which sharia law applies, and that such acts are not time-barred under sharia law”. According to the complainant, although the ruling contains an implicit reference to the applicable punishment through its 13 10 Attached (in Arabic) to the file. GE.16-15793