CAT/C/58/D/682/2015 grounds for the competent authorities to believe that an extradition order issued in respect of an ordinary crime is racially, religiously or politically motivated. 4.10 The State party further notes that, during its consideration of the periodic report of Saudi Arabia, the Committee welcomed the fact that the Saudi Code of Criminal Procedure guarantees every accused person the right to avail himself or herself of the services of a lawyer at all stages of an investigation and trial. The State party adds that the Committee also welcomed the competence of the Saudi Board of Grievances to hear allegations of violations of human rights, the fact that certain medical facilities possess appropriate forensic medical expertise for the examination of alleged victims of torture and the establishment of a standing commission to investigate accusations of torture. 4.11 The competent Moroccan authorities believed that Mr. Alhaj Ali would not be at personal risk if handed over to the requesting judicial authorities, and therefore issued a favourable opinion on the extradition request, in accordance with the Convention, the Riyadh Arab Agreement on Judicial Cooperation and the extradition legislation in force. 4.12 With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 and to the Committee’s jurisprudence,9 the State party notes that the burden is on the complainant to present an arguable case that Mr. Alhaj Ali would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture, and that such risk is personal and present. According to the State party, in this case, the complainant has not presented an arguable case establishing such a risk, nor has she provided sufficient evidence to allow the Committee to conclude that the extradition of Mr. Alhaj Ali would put him at such risk, as required by article 3 of the Convention. 4.13 Regarding the complainant’s allegations under the Riyadh Arab Agreement on Judicial Cooperation, the State party stresses that it is article 42 of the Agreement that is relevant to this case, not article 26, which was invoked by the complainant (para. 3.10 above). Article 44 stipulates that the person whose extradition is requested must be released if the requested State does not receive, within a period of 30 days following the date of arrest, the documents listed in article 42 of the Agreement or unless the requesting State submits a request for the extension of pretrial detention, which may in no circumstances exceed 60 days. In the present case, Mr. Alhaj Ali was arrested on 30 October 2014, and the competent authorities received the extradition request and other relevant documents on 13 November 2014, within the legal deadline imposed by the Agreement. 4.14 Regarding the complainant’s claim in relation to the ne bis in idem principle, the State party reiterates that the same argument was put forward as the main grounds for defence before the Court of Cassation, which rejected it because the decision of the Twelfth Criminal Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Damascus, dated 31 March 2009, did not mention the facts of the case or include any evidence that breach of trust was the offence referred to in the extradition request considered by the Court of Cassation. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 19 October 2015, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations. She notes, first of all, that the State party does not contest the admissibility of the complaint but finds it without merit. 5.2 According to the complainant, the State party has merely offered a brief overview of its version of events, but has not responded to her detailed conclusions in relation to the violations that her husband, Mr. Alhaj Ali, would be in danger of being subjected to if he 9 GE.16-15793 The State party refers to communication No. 525/2012, R.A.Y. v. Morocco, adopted on 16 May 2014. 7