CAT/C/66/D/827/2017 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the nonrefoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination, and its practice of considering that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.26 The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof is upon the complainant, who has to present an arguable case – i.e., to submit circumstantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, personal, present and real. However, when the complainant is in a situation where he or she is unable to elaborate on his or her case, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must then investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based. 27 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by the organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 28 9.5 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s argument that, in the event of extradition to Turkey, he faces a serious risk of torture because of his perceived membership of the Hizmet movement. In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant is the subject of an arrest warrant for membership of this movement, while according to the reports placed on file, the use of torture and ill-treatment against persons with his profile is commonplace during their detention. The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the Court of Cassation has not applied article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has not verified whether the request for the complainant’s extradition is of a political nature. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, Moroccan criminal law is in conformity with the Convention, since it establishes that no person may be extradited if it is likely that he or she will be subjected to persecution for reasons of race, religion, or his or her political or personal situation, or if that person may be in danger for any such reasons. 9.6 The Committee must take into account the current situation of human rights in Turkey, including the impact of the state of emergency (which was lifted in July 2018, but whose restrictive measures have been prolonged by the adoption of a series of legislative measures). The Committee notes that successive prolongations of the state of emergency in Turkey have led to serious violations of the human rights of hundreds of thousands of people, including arbitrary deprivation of the right to work and freedom of movement, torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and violations of the rights to freedom of association and expression.29 In this regard, the Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Turkey (CAT/C/TUR/CO/4), in which it noted with concern, in paragraph 9, the significant disparity between the high number of allegations of torture reported by non-governmental organizations and the data provided by the State party in its periodic report (see paras. 273–276 and annexes 1 and 2), which suggested that not all allegations of torture had been investigated during the reporting period. In the same concluding observations, in paragraph 19, the Committee highlighted its concern about recent amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gave the police greater powers to detain individuals without judicial oversight during police custody. In paragraph 33, the Committee expressed regret about the lack of complete information on suicides and other sudden deaths in detention facilities during the period under review. 9.7 The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the state of emergency declared in Turkey on 20 July 2016 increased the risk that persons accused of belonging to terrorist groups would be subjected to torture while in detention. The Committee recognizes that the concluding observations in question were issued prior to the declaration of the state 26 27 28 29 GE.19-10059 Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 11. Ibid., para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. OHCHR, “Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East: January – December 2017”, March 2018. 9