CAT/C/66/D/827/2017 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 26 May 2018 the complainant submitted his comments. He clarifies the subject of his complaint, specifying that it does not relate to the arrest procedure in the State party, nor to the terms of mutual legal assistance between Morocco and Turkey, but to the legal opinion issued by the Court of Cassation and the extradition proceedings that would follow from it. The State party has failed to meet its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 7.2 The Court of Cassation has not applied article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has not verified whether the request for the extradition of the complainant is of a political nature, while in the Turkish extradition case file there is a glaring gap between the unfounded evidence adduced by Turkey – detailed statements presented without material evidence, legitimate financial transactions, personal notes and correspondence between the complainant and his business friends – and the grave and serious charges related to terrorism and the financing of terrorism. This clear and considerable discrepancy should be sufficient in and of itself to prompt the State party to give greater consideration to the complainant’s allegations and to have serious doubts about the hidden nature of the extradition request. Assessing such a discrepancy is the essence of article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 3 of the Convention. 7.3 While the Court of Cassation is not competent to assess the essential legal value of the evidence contained in the extradition request, it is still fully legally capable and competent to assess it in relation to the other elements of the case, in accordance with the provisions of article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 3 of the Convention. The Court of Cassation has the right to call into question the hidden reasons behind the application for the complainant’s extradition and to take real and concrete steps to make an informed decision. 7.4 The State party does not explain how it was able to conclude that the complainant was involved in the acts for which he has been charged by Turkey while at the same time maintaining that the Court of Cassation cannot assess the merits of the case linked to the extradition request. According to the testimony of a person who knows the complainant, he is a religious moderate, a far cry from the description of him provided by his country’s Government. 7.5 In addition, on 6 January 2017, the Turkish Government adopted three decree-laws under the state of emergency, including Decree-Law No. 680, which gives the authorities the power to revoke the citizenship of persons under investigation and who remain abroad. A wanted for return notice published on 10 September 2017 in the Official Gazette by the Turkish Ministry of Justice contained the complainant’s name as well. The objective of Decree-Law No. 680, namely the revocation of the complainant’s citizenship in a discriminatory manner and as punishment for political dissent, is arbitrary deprivation of nationality, which is specifically prohibited under the Turkish Constitution and international human rights law. Furthermore, the arbitrary deprivation of nationality of the complainant is further evidence that the extradition request is of a purely political nature. 7.6 The complainant points out that the principle of non-refoulement established in article 3 of the Convention applies to both expulsion and extradition. 7.7 Lastly, the complainant refers to paragraph 6 of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22,14 arguing that the Committee interpreted article 3 of the Convention as a provision that imposes on the State party the obligation to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if expelled, returned or extradited. All legal means in assessing the risk of torture are legitimate and must be explored, including the assessment of the general human rights situation in Turkey. The extension of the state of emergency in Turkey has led to grave human rights violations, including acts of torture, as reported by the Office of the United Nations High 14 6 This general comment was replaced in 2017 by general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22. GE.19-10059