CAT/C/58/D/682/2015 to being handed over to the Saudi authorities, he would never have appeared before the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation. Indeed, the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that, when a person consents to extradition, copies of the statement expressing their acceptance must be sent to the Prosecutor-General of the Supreme Court and to the Minister of Justice. 11 The fact that the present case was referred to the Court of Cassation proves that Mr. Alhaj Ali did not formally consent to being handed over to the authorities of the requesting State for fear of being tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Saudi Arabia. The ne bis in idem principle 5.8 Contrary to what was stated by the Moroccan Government in its responses, Mr. Alhaj Ali has already been the subject of a decision by the Court of First Instance in Damascus dated 31 March 2009. The prosecution brought in the Syrian Arab Republic and the ensuing criminal conviction were based on the request by Saudi Arabia for his extradition; 12 that request was itself premised on the same acts as those alleged in the current proceedings before the Moroccan authorities. The complainant argues that, in these circumstances, the prosecution of Mr. Alhaj Ali for acts for which he has already been prosecuted and sentenced can thus not go ahead without violating the ne bis in idem principle. Statute of limitations for the offence under national law in the two States (requested/requesting) 5.9 As a subsidiary argument, the complainant maintains that there is an issue concerning the statute of limitations in the national law of the two States that also renders extradition unlawful. As observed by the State party itself, while the offence of breach of trust is not subject to a statute of limitations in Saudi Arabia, the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure provides that sentences become time-barred five years after the date of the judgment. The alleged acts are therefore time-barred under Moroccan law and the Moroccan Government cannot, in the circumstances, agree to the extradition request. Indeed, the decree concerning the extradition of foreign nationals expressly stipulates that extradition to the requesting State is not granted when, under the laws of either the requesting State or the requested State, the time limit for bringing an action has passed before the extradition request is served, or the time limit for the enforcement of the sentence has passed before the arrest of the individual whose extradition is requested, and, generally, whenever the prosecution has lapsed. Legal nature of the ongoing detention of Mr. Alhaj Ali under the Riyadh Arab Agreement on Judicial Cooperation 5.10 In accordance with article 26 of the Riyadh Arab Agreement on Judicial Cooperation of 22 March 1983, signed by Morocco and 20 other Arab States, which provides that in no circumstances may a period of pretrial detention exceed 60 days from the time of arrest, Mr. Alhaj Ali’s ongoing detention cannot be justified. In the present case, the time limit has been greatly exceeded. Consequently, Mr. Alhaj Ali’s continued detention pending extradition could be viewed as arbitrary. It should be noted that the State party has acknowledged that Mr. Alhaj Ali’s pretrial detention, which has lasted almost a year, is “prejudicial to his rights”. 5.11 In conclusion, the complainant requests the Committee: to remind the State party that the facts before the Committee would disclose a violation by the State party of article 3 11 12 GE.16-15793 Article 15 of Decree No. 1-58-057 of 25 rebia II 1378, concerning the extradition of foreign nationals. The Syrian authorities rejected the request to extradite Mr. Alhaj Ali. 9