CAT/C/50/D/430/2010 3.3 In view of the frequent use of torture in Tunisia, and considering the ill-treatment of the two defendants arrested in the same case, there is a substantial risk that Mr. Abichou would also be subjected to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment in the event of his extradition to Tunisia, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 19 October 2010, the State party contested the admissibility of the communication under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. 4.2 The State party notes that Onsi Abichou, of French and Tunisian nationality, was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment on several counts of large-scale smuggling and drug trafficking. Mr. Abichou was the subject of an Interpol notice, which led to his arrest in Saarbrücken on 17 October 2009. Tunisia had requested his extradition so that he could be made to serve his sentence. In accordance with the State party’s extradition procedures, the extradition was approved by the Saarbrücken Regional High Court, which determined that Tunisian law allowed appeals in cases where a verdict had been delivered in absentia and that, even though Mr. Abichou had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he could be eligible for parole after 15 years in prison. Consequently, the German Government had authorized the extradition. The Tunisian Government had been notified of this decision by note verbale on 8 July 2010. 4.3 Mr. Abichou appealed against this decision before the German Constitutional Court, arguing that he would face a substantial risk of torture if extradited to Tunisia and that the judgement against him was based on evidence obtained under torture. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal. Consequently, on 23 August 2010,11 Mr. Abichou submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33841/10) under articles 3 and 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [European Convention on Human Rights] and under Protocol No. 7 of that same Convention, although it has not been ratified by the State party. In the same application, Mr. Abichou also submitted a request for interim measures under rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court rejected his request, however. 4.4 According to the State party, it was only once the European Court of Human Rights had rejected Mr. Abichou’s request to have the State party suspend the extradition proceedings that he turned to the Committee and submitted the present communication. The Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures requested the State party to refrain from proceeding with the extradition of Mr. Abichou to Tunisia. This request was conveyed to the State party on 25 August 2010. However, it did not reach the competent authorities of the State party until after Mr. Abichou had been extradited. Consequently, the State party was not in a position to comply with the Committee’s request for interim measures. According to the State party’s records, the Permanent Mission of the State party in Geneva received the Committee’s request for interim measures on 25 August 2010 at 12.05 p.m. The person responsible for such matters immediately (at 12.10 p.m.) sent the information to the Human Rights Unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin by e-mail. At that stage the message was handled directly by the Ministry departments responsible for international legal matters. At 1.39 p.m. the Ministry of Justice was informed of the Committee’s request. The appropriate person immediately contacted the regional authority in charge of extradition proceedings (Saarland Ministry of Justice). This person was informed that Mr. 11 6 According to the complainant’s initial communication, the matter had been referred to the European Court of Human Rights on 20 August 2010. [The complaint is annexed to the case file but is not dated and was apparently submitted to the Court on 19 August 2010 and rejected on 23 August 2010.] GE.13-45615