CAT/C/66/D/827/2017 2016, in particular for persons who, like the complainant, have some perceived or actual membership of the Hizmet movement. The Committee notes that the authorities of the State party have merely ascertained that the form and substance of the extradition request for the complainant by the Turkish authorities is in conformity with the Agreement on Mutual Assistance concluded between the two countries on 15 May 1989, which predates the ratification of the Convention by the State party on 21 June 1993, and without assessing the risk of torture that the complainant would face if extradited to Turkey from the standpoint of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee also notes that the Turkish authorities have included the complainant’s name on a list of persons whose Turkish nationality it has threatened to revoke. The Committee recalls that the primary aim of the Convention is to prevent torture, not to redress torture once it has occurred.39 9.11 In the light of the above, and having regard to the complainant’s profile as a member – perceived or real – of the Hizmet movement, the Committee is of the view that it was for the State party to conduct an individualized assessment of the real and personal risk to which the complainant would be exposed in Turkey, particularly bearing in mind the documented treatment by the Turkish authorities of persons related to this movement, rather than to base its decision on the assumption that an extradition request had been made in accordance with an agreement between the two countries and that the crimes for which the complainant had been accused are crimes under ordinary law, also covered by Moroccan criminal law. The Committee also considers that article 721 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically mention the risk of torture and ill-treatment in the event of extradition, but only the risk of worsening the personal situation of individuals who are the subject of extradition requests, on the grounds of their race, religion, nationality or political opinions, if the offence in respect of which extradition is requested is considered by the State party to be a political offence or to be connected with such an offence.40 In the present case, on the basis of the findings of the Court of Cassation sitting as a court of extradition, the Committee cannot conclude that the Court gave consideration to the arguments that there was a present, foreseeable, real and personal risk that the complainant would be subjected to torture if extradited to Turkey. The Committee thus concludes that the extradition of the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainants’ extradition to Turkey would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee is of the view that, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, the State party is required to: (a) Ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future by carrying out individual assessments of the real risk of torture and ill-treatment, including by taking into consideration the general human rights situation in the country of return, every time it considers an extradition request under an agreement or an extradition procedure; (b) Refrain from extraditing the complainant to Turkey and consider the request for the complainant’s extradition to Turkey in the light of its obligations under the Convention – which entails an assessment of the risk of torture and ill-treatment in the event of extradition – and of this decision, all the more so as the complainant filed an application for international protection with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Rabat, on 23 May 2017. Given that the complainant has been held in pretrial detention for almost 2 years, the State party is under an obligation to release him.41 12. In accordance with rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 39 40 41 GE.19-10059 Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.5. See footnote 13. Alhaj Ali v. Morocco, para. 9. 11