CAT/C/66/D/827/2017 Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in its report of 20 March 2018.15 The use of torture, arbitrary detention and arbitrary deprivation of the rights to work and to freedom of movement, expression and association had already been denounced in the 2017 report.16 The complainant also notes that the German authorities have criticized Turkey for misuse of the International Criminal Police Organization-INTERPOL since the attempted coup d’état in 2016. In the complainant’s view, the INTERPOL National Central Bureau in the State party should have examined the notice issued against him more closely and should have ignored it, in line with articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of INTERPOL. 17 7.8 The complainant requests that he be released and be accorded international protection in the State party’s territory or in a safe third country. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the complaint 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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that the State party argues that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, invoking the possibility of an extraordinary remedy – the application for revocation. The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument, which the State party does not contest, regarding the special nature of this remedy, which does not have suspensive effect and therefore provides no guarantee of satisfaction. Indeed, the Committee notes the very exceptional nature of this remedy, which, according to article 563 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, makes it possible to challenge decisions of the Court of Cassation in the following cases: (a) if the decision has been handed down on the basis of documents recognized to be forgeries; (b) to correct obvious material errors; (c) to overturn a court decision for lack of reasoning in the judgment; and (d) to quash decisions when they are based on grounds that were considered authentic, but which prove to be false. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the suspensive effect of a remedy is one of the essential procedural guarantees in expulsion proceedings, since its aim is to prevent possible violations of the principle of non-refoulement and thus to ensure the full implementation of article 3 of the Convention.18 8.3 The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and recalls that in the present case, in accordance with the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant was only required to apply for remedies that are directly related to the risk of being subjected to torture in Turkey. 19 The Committee notes that the State party has not specified how an application for revocation of the Court of Cassation’s decision of 31 May 2017 could affect the complainant’s extradition to Turkey, as it has not indicated whether that remedy has suspensive effect. The Committee also notes that the State party has not refuted the complainant’s allegation that applications for revocation do not have suspensive effect. The Committee recalls that in several of the cases brought before it, an extradition order was signed by the Head of Government even before the Court of Cassation had ruled on an 15 16 17 18 19 GE.19-10059 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, paras. 7, 77, 81 and 83. OHCHR, “Report on the human rights situation in South-East Turkey, July 2015 to December 2016”, February 2017. INTERPOL, Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization-INTERPOL (I/CONS/GA/1956 (2017)). Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) , paras. 13, 18 (e) and 34. Gharsallah v. Morocco (CAT/C/64/D/810/2017), para. 7.4, and Kalinichenko v. Morocco (CAT/C/47/D/428/2010), para. 14.3. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 34. 7