CAT/C/66/D/827/2017 with motives or considerations relating to religion, race, nationality or political opinion. Furthermore, the Agreement on Mutual Assistance has adequate guarantees in relation to the non-extradition of persons for political reasons. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 19 January 2018 the complainant argued that the application for revocation invoked by the State party was, as specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure, an exceptional remedy. It is not an ordinary appeal against a decision of a court of first instance or a court of appeal, but against a decision handed down by the Court of Cassation itself. Applications for revocation are therefore not brought before a higher court; they are brought before the very same Court of Cassation. 5.2 Moreover, the application for revocation procedure is futile and without effect in the present case. First, the complainant has no new elements that would be decisive in the examination of his appeal by the very same court that issued the ruling in favour of his extradition. Secondly, in similar cases, applications for revocation have not been effective. 12 Lastly, an application for revocation does not have suspensive effect. This being the case, the complainant cannot be required to initiate such an appeal and to await its outcome while constantly facing the risk of being extradited and exposed to irreversible harm. 5.3 Lastly, the complainant refers to the high cost of the application for revocation – the equivalent of €100 – if the appeal is dismissed. In view of the finances of the complainant, who is in prison for extradition and does not have family in Morocco, the deposit requirement is onerous and beyond what he can afford. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 19 December 2017, the State party submitted observations on the merits. First, it described the procedural details of the complainant’s arrest in Morocco pursuant to the extradition request submitted by the Turkish authorities. The arrest was carried out in accordance with article 29 of the Agreement on Mutual Assistance concluded between the two countries. 6.2 Next, the State party referred to the procedure before the Court of Cassation, which held that the acts for which the complainant had been charged in his country of origin were crimes under ordinary law – crimes of terrorism – that were also crimes under the Moroccan Criminal Code, and that such crimes could not be considered political in nature or associated with political crimes. During the proceedings, the complainant fully benefited from all guarantees of a fair trial, including access to a lawyer. The State party systematically refuses extradition requests when the conditions set by article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure13 are met. The provisions of the national legislation adequately implement the principles of the Convention. The complainant has not been subjected to any acts of torture or ill-treatment in the territory of the State party. 6.3 As an extradition court, the Court of Cassation is not competent to hand down a ruling on the scope of the evidence contained in the extradition request. The Court considered that the extradition request was not of a political character, as the complainant was involved in terrorism and the financing of terrorism. In essence, extradition and refoulement are two completely different legal procedures. 12 13 GE.19-10059 The complainant refers to the case of Alhaj Ali v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/682/2015), where the complainant submitted an application for revocation of the decision of the Court of Cassation, without success. Article 721 provides, inter alia, that extradition shall not be authorized when the offence for which it is requested is considered a political offence, or an offence connected with a political offence, by the State of Morocco. This rule applies, in particular, when the State of Morocco has substantial grounds for believing that an extradition request apparently related to an ordinary offence has in fact been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on grounds of his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or may aggravate this person’s situation for any of these reasons. 5