CAT/C/66/D/845/2017 responsible for an attempted coup – an act that was entirely politically motivated – must automatically be regarded as a political crime or offence. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint in notes verbales dated 19 December 2017 and 30 April 2018. 4.2 The State party maintains that the Court of Cassation determined that membership of a terrorist group – the offence for which extradition was requested – is an ordinary offence, not a political offence. In this context, it believes that its domestic legislation contains sufficient provisions to guarantee compliance with the Convention. Article 721 of its Code of Criminal Procedure provides that extradition requests are inadmissible if the Moroccan authorities believe them to be related to a political offence. The accused person will not be extradited if the authorities believe that he or she may be subjected to persecution on the grounds of his or her race, religion, political opinion or personal circumstances. The same applies if the person may be in danger for any of these reasons. 4.3 The State party also notes that the complainant did not invoke the risk of torture before the Court of Cassation, and Turkey gave assurances that the complainant’s rights would be respected, in conformity with the international instruments ratified by Turkey. Furthermore, since Turkey has accepted the individual applications procedure under article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the complainant would have the possibility of filing a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights if he were to be subject to a violation of his rights. 4.4 The claims that the evidence provided by the Turkish authorities is not convincing were not sufficiently substantiated by the complainant. Furthermore, it is not within the Court of Cassation’s competence to express an opinion as to the complainant’s innocence or guilt. Responsibility for making such decisions, in full compliance with the rules of fair trial, lies with the competent judicial authorities of the State requesting extradition. 4.5 The Court of Cassation also considered the complainant’s claim that the Hizmet movement cannot be deemed a terrorist organization. It recalled that Turkey is a sovereign State and that, according to its law, Hizmet is considered a terrorist movement accused of having organized the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. The State party also points out that the Court of Cassation is not competent to assess the lawfulness of this legislation: its authority is limited to determining the lawfulness of the extradition proceedings. It must thus ensure that the acts in respect of which extradition is requested constitute offences under the Criminal Code of Morocco. 4.6 The Court of Cassation found the claim that the extradition request was politically motivated to be unfounded. Article 27.1 of the agreement concluded between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Republic of Turkey on legal assistance in criminal matters and extradition stipulates that extradition cannot be agreed if the offence for which it is requested is regarded as a political offence or is connected with political issues. In this case, the purpose of the extradition request is to try the complainant on charges of membership of an armed terrorist group, which is not a political offence. The complainant failed to prove to the Court of Cassation that the underlying reasons for the extradition request were issues of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. 4.7 As for the complainant’s claim to be an asylum seeker, the State party recalls that, as pointed out by the Court of Cassation, extradition proceedings are fundamentally different from proceedings for the expulsion of foreign nationals illegally present in the State party’s territory. A State that does not recognize the principle of extradition does not thereby waive its right to expel foreign nationals in general. Expulsion proceedings initiated by the State in which the foreign national is residing are not conditional upon the existence of an agreement with the State to which the person will be expelled. 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.” 4 GE.19-10568