CAT/C/50/D/430/2010 Mr. Abichou’s French citizenship) took over Onsi Abichou’s case.16 Moreover, the German Embassy followed the progress of his new trial at first instance, as well as the appeal procedure.17 There has been no indication that Onsi Abichou has been subjected to torture or to other inhuman treatment. 6.5 On the question of exposure to the risk of torture, the State party states that it is aware of the substantial risk to which certain groups of suspects are exposed and that this may be regarded as constituting a systematic practice. Nevertheless, in the view of the Government of Germany, Onsi Abichou does not belong to any of the groups that could be considered to be exposed to such a risk. The complainant refers to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ben Khemais v. Italy, in which the Court explicitly enumerated the specific risks faced by persons suspected of terrorist activities. Onsi Abichou does not fall into that category. If charges of that nature had been brought against him, it is very unlikely that he would have been extradited. The Committee will be able to draw its own conclusions from the fact that the European Court of Human Rights, taking due account of its jurisprudence over the question of extradition to Tunisia, nevertheless rejected Onsi Abichou’s request for interim measures on several occasions. 6.6 The State party adds that the weight of diplomatic assurances differs depending on whether they are provided in connection with cases of extradition or of deportation. It is reasonable to assume that a requesting State will wish to avoid jeopardizing future extradition requests by failing to respect the assurances it extends to another State. This is all the more true in cases not involving any political overtones or suspected terrorist activity, as in the present instance, which is a simple case of drug trafficking. For these reasons, the State party maintains that its courts and authorities correctly assessed the risk to which Onsi Abichou would be exposed as a result of his extradition to Tunisia. At the time of the decision, there was no indication that Mr. Abichou would be subjected to torture, that the Tunisian authorities would fail to honour their assurances or that they would fail to act if a complaint of that nature were to be made. Consequently, this decision does not contravene article 3 of the Convention. The State party therefore requests that the Committee rule that the complaint is inadmissible on the ground that it constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication or, alternatively, that it constitutes a violation of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. Should the Committee decide that the complaint is admissible, the State party requests that the Committee declare it to be unfounded. State party’s additional submission 7.1 On 27 May 2011, the State party submitted additional information to the Committee, informing it that, on 19 May 2011, the Tunis Court of Appeal had acquitted Onsi Abichou of all charges against him and that he had been released. The German Embassy followed the proceedings, and it appears that Onsi Abichou was released on the basis of statements made by defence witnesses. 7.2 According to the State party, these facts demonstrate that the Tunisian authorities honoured their diplomatic assurances, which bears out the State party’s previous observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. 16 17 10 The State party does not elaborate on this point. The Tunis Court of Appeal handed down its decision on 19 May 2011 (see para. 7.1 below). GE.13-45615