CAT/C/68/D/782/2016 the proceedings, the articles that he had published online were removed and the print copies were confiscated by the authorities. 3.7 In conclusion, the complainant requests not to be extradited to Egypt and asks to be released immediately if he is not subject to proceedings on any other grounds justifying his detention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint in a note verbale dated 22 May 2017. 4.2 Concerning the complainant’s claims that all domestic remedies have been exhausted, the Moroccan authorities specify that, while the judgment of the Court of Cassation in favour of the complainant’s extradition is not subject to any ordinary appeal, it may be subject to an application for revocation, in accordance with articles 563 and 564 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.3 Under article 563 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, judgments of the Court of Cassation can be subject to an application for revocation in the following cases: (a) if a decision has been handed down on the basis of documents found or recognized to be forgeries; (b) in order to correct judgments vitiated by a clear error of fact that can be rectified using elements contained in the judgment itself; (c) if the Court has failed to rule on a request presented in the context of the presentation of evidence or has not provided a reasoned judgment; and (d) if a decision of inadmissibility or termination of a case has been issued for reasons arising from elements that were considered to be authentic but are found to be false following the submission of new documents that are equally authentic. 4.4 For this reason, despite the complainant’s claims, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that he has not exhausted all domestic remedies and that his submission of a complaint to the Committee was premature. 4.5 With regard to the alleged risk that article 3 of the Convention would be violated if the complainant were to be extradited, the State party points out, firstly, that, contrary to the complainant’s current assertion, he never claimed before a national authority or court that he would be in danger of torture if extradited. Secondly, it should be noted that the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to the terms of the Convention and within a framework of strict compliance with the relevant international standards, provides, in article 721, that the Moroccan authorities have a duty to reject any extradition request for an ordinary criminal offence if they have substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made solely for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing an individual on the grounds of race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or there is a risk of a deterioration in the individual’s situation on any of those accounts. 4.6 Furthermore, the Moroccan authorities stress that the complainant’s arrest was conducted within a strictly legal framework and in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and Extradition concluded between Morocco and Egypt on 22 March 1989. In short, the complainant has benefited from all relevant legal and judicial guarantees and, in the light of all the above, the Moroccan authorities have not identified any risk that he might be subjected to torture if extradited. For this reason, and in compliance with the law, the Moroccan authorities have not violated any provisions of the Convention. 4.7 With regard to the merits, the State party notes that the complainant was arrested on the basis of an international arrest warrant issued against him by the Egyptian authorities and on the basis of a request made by the competent Egyptian authorities, given that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment following his involvement in a case of forgery of authentic instruments in collusion with a public official. The State party states that the complainant was sentenced in absentia in Egypt: on 14 May 2012 by the Helwan court of first instance to 3 years’ imprisonment for misappropriation of funds under case No. 5374/2012; on 28 August 2013 by the Helwan criminal court to life imprisonment under case No. 7286/2013 concerning forgery of authentic instruments in collusion with a public official; and on 14 November 2013 by the Helwan court of first instance to 8 months’ imprisonment for misappropriation of funds under case No. 12229/2013. 4 GE.19-22535