CAT/C/64/D/727/2016 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 5 August 2016, the State party indicated that the complainant had been arrested, as a result of an Interpol alert issued by the Belarusian authorities, when he entered Germany from the Czech Republic. He was charged with having illegally dealt in narcotics, on repeated occasions, in September of 2006 in Grodno. In October 2006, the complainant had entered the Czech Republic under an assumed name. His real name became known only in December 2009, when confirmation of his fingerprints was received from the Belarusian authorities. The Czech Republic rejected several asylum requests filed by the complainant. On 23 April 2010, the District Court of Pilsen ruled that extradition of the complainant was not permissible, stating that there was good reason to fear that the criminal proceedings against him in Belarus would not be in accordance with articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 6.2 The State party notes that, on 26 October 2015, the Higher Regional Court of Dresden decided that the complainant be placed in extradition custody on a temporary basis. The Court based its decision on the fact that the crimes described were extraditable offences and that no grounds were readily apparent that would contravene the extradition. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was instructed to request an assurance from the Belarusian authorities that the complainant would be placed in a detention facility in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the European Prison Rules, as well as with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). 6.3 The State party indicates that, on 3 November 2015, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Belarus gave the written assurances, indicating that, if returned, the complainant: would not be extradited to a third State and prosecuted under criminal law without the consent of the responsible German authorities; would not be prosecuted under criminal law for offences not reflected in his extradition request; would be given the opportunity to defend himself, also with the assistance of lawyers; and would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The State party further indicates that the Office of the Prosecutor General of Belarus gave the assurance that the complainant would be placed in a detention facility compliant with international standards for the treatment of prisoners and that the employees of the German Embassy in Belarus would be allowed to visit him in detention. 6.4 The State party further notes that, on 23 November 2015, the Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Dresden issued an extradition order against the complainant. In its decision, the Higher Regional Court relied on the statements in the preliminary extradition warrant as regards the maximum punishment under the criminal law of Belarus that the complainant would face, the legal assessment under German criminal law and on the binding assurances given by the Office of the Prosecutor General of Belarus. 6.5 The State party notes that, on 23 December 2015, upon the request of the complainant, the presiding judge of the Senate of the Higher Regional Court appointed a legal adviser, who filed a complaint on 12 January 2016, appealing the extradition decision. By an order of 22 January 2016, the Senate of the Higher Regional Court dismissed the appeal, noting, inter alia, that no specific evidence had been provided with regard to the complainant’s claim that he distributed flyers and thus became subject to persecution; and that the concerns raised by the court-appointed legal adviser were based on assumptions. The Senate referred to the assurances of the Belarusian authorities and stated that there were no indications that the complainant would risk torture or ill-treatment if extradited. Reflecting upon the complainant’s status in the Czech Republic, the Senate stated that the Czech authorities had not granted the complainant the legal status of refugee, but had — by way of taking into consideration the decision of the European Court of Human Rights — only granted him tolerated stay and a temporary suspension of removal, thus not contravening the ban on extradition. The Senate further concluded that the complainant should not be expelled, but instead extradited to Belarus for the purposes of criminal prosecution. 6.6 The State party notes that, on 10 February 2016, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the complainant’s appeal without citing any grounds for its decision. The extradition proceedings were not pursued further following the Committee’s request not to 4