CAT/C/58/D/682/2015 mention of sharia as the applicable law, the judge did not qualify corporal punishment as a form of torture, despite being aware of the applicable punishment and of the State party’s obligations under the Convention. The complainant adds that, when it last considered a report submitted by Saudi Arabia, the Committee established unequivocally that corporal punishment, including flogging and amputation of limbs — which is relevant to the present case — is a form of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 6.7 The complainant concludes that, having accepted that the penalties laid down in Saudi Arabia for breach of trust are those imposed under sharia law, the Moroccan judge should have raised the risk of torture faced by Mr. Alhaj Ali ex officio and rejected the request for extradition to Saudi Arabia. Consequently, the complainant requests the Committee to find that all available remedies have been exhausted and to grant the requests made in her initial submission. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party maintains that Mr. Alhaj Ali never mentioned to the 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, which raises issues under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s arguments that, before the Court of Cassation on 17 December 2014, Mr. Alhaj Ali’s lawyer stated orally that extradition would put his client at risk of cruel treatment and “severe” punishment; and that the risk of being subjected to treatment that was cruel or incompatible with human dignity or to inhuman punishment was cited explicitly in the application for review sent by Mr. Alhaj Ali to the Ministry of Justice on 3 February 2015. The Committee concludes that the State party authorities were not unaware of the real risk faced by Mr. Alhaj Ali. The Committee further notes the complainant’s argument that the risk of torture, of which the judge was aware given that he acknowledged the applicability of sharia law to the offence in question in Saudi Arabia, should have been raised ex officio by the judge and taken into account in his ruling as grounds for refusing extradition. 7.4 Under the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication and, accordingly, finds the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee must determine whether the extradition of Mr. Alhaj Ali to Saudi Arabia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. GE.16-15793 11