CAT/C/58/D/682/2015 were extradited to Saudi Arabia and then, no doubt, expelled to the Syrian Arab Republic upon completion of his sentence. The State party maintains that Mr. Alhaj Ali would not be at risk of torture or other ill-treatment because Saudi Arabia has allegedly undertaken reforms aimed at amending its Code of Criminal Procedure. The State party bases its argument on the Committee’s consideration of the initial report of Saudi Arabia in 2002, in the knowledge that no significant reforms have been introduced in the country since then. In reality, the practice of torture and ill-treatment remains particularly widespread in Saudi Arabia. There have been many documented cases of torture in the country, as reflected in various reports produced by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture in recent years. Indeed, Saudi Arabia still does not have binding legislation criminalizing torture. 5.3 The complainant rejects the State party’s assertion that she has not presented an arguable case that her husband would face a risk of being subjected to torture if he were handed over to the Saudi judicial authorities. She notes that, as a foreign national accused of breach of trust, Mr. Alhaj Ali faces a high risk of being subjected to corporal punishment. Saudi criminal law remains unwritten, which gives judges a significant degree of discretion. No penalty is specifically provided for in Saudi criminal law for breach of trust. The judge may use analogical reasoning (qiyas), as permitted in such cases under sharia law, to sentence the defendant to the penalty for a similar offence such as theft. In the present case, the victim is in danger of being sentenced to amputation, bearing in mind that the Saudi judiciary is not given to clemency when sentencing foreign nationals, as evidenced by the country’s jurisprudence. 5.4 Consequently, the complainant reiterates that Mr. Alhaj Ali would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment in Saudi Arabia, and that such risk goes well beyond mere “theory”. Risk of extradition to the Syrian Arab Republic 5.5 The complainant adds that, in its responses, the Moroccan Government makes no mention of the risk of refoulement from Saudi Arabia to the Syrian Arab Republic upon completion of a sentence, even though the human rights situation is extremely worrying in Mr. Alhaj Ali’s country of origin, which is currently in the grip of civil war. The complainant also points out that Saudi Arabia has still not ratified the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 5.6 In response to the State party’s contention that Mr. Alhaj Ali is not a political refugee since his case file contains no evidence to support that claim, the complainant points out that Mr. Alhaj Ali applied for asylum with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Rabat on 21 January 2015, 10 having fled persecution in his country of origin. The Moroccan authorities are therefore not competent to judge the credibility of Mr. Alhaj Ali’s asylum application until UNHCR has reached a decision on the matter. The complainant further notes the history of persecution and torture of Mr. Alhaj Ali by members of Air Force Intelligence on account of his active participation in the peaceful protests that broke out in 2011. Pursuant to article 1 (A) (2) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, there is no doubt that Mr. Alhaj Ali cannot return to his country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of his political opinions. 5.7 As to Mr. Alhaj Ali’s alleged consent to being extradited to Saudi Arabia, the complainant maintains that her husband has in fact consistently opposed the measure, as confirmed by the decision of the public prosecutor’s office to bring the case before the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation in Rabat. If Mr. Alhaj Ali really had consented 10 8 His asylum application is included in the file. GE.16-15793