CAT/C/68/D/782/2016 independent journalists’ union, which the Moroccan authorities did not consider to have legal status. The Crown Prosecutor, influenced by the grounds for the Egyptian extradition request, thus considered that the possession of such a union card constituted the offence of forgery and use of forged documents. That is the reason why the complainant was prosecuted and sentenced on 29 February 2016 to 3 months’ imprisonment, a ruling confirmed on appeal on 4 July 2016. It cannot be denied that the proceedings brought in Egypt and the criminal conviction handed down by the Casablanca criminal court of first instance were based on the same facts and related to the same criminal offence as the extradition request submitted by the Egyptian authorities. Since the complainant has completed his three-month prison sentence, his prosecution under these circumstances for acts for which he has already been prosecuted and sentenced in Morocco cannot go ahead without violating the ne bis in idem principle. 5.13 On 14 March 2018, the complainant announced that he was beginning an openended hunger strike to protest against his recent transfer from Salé prison to the highsecurity wing of Tiflet 2 prison, where he is currently being held. Since then, he has been placed in solitary confinement and is totally cut off from the outside world. The complainant does not have any family or any lawyer who could visit him and his counsel has not heard from him since his last call. He said that the conditions in which he is currently held are usually reserved for convicted prisoners and are in no way justifiable in the present case, given that the complainant has been placed in custody pending extradition.13 5.14 In addition, from 1 November 2017, the complainant repeatedly asked to be examined by a doctor, but the prison authorities did not respond to his request. It was not until 28 February 2018 that he was finally taken to the infirmary after his health deteriorated. At that time the doctor ordered urgent radiology examinations and analyses, which, to date, have not been carried out. The complainant considers that the deterioration in his state of health is directly attributable to the inertia shown by the prison authorities. Their refusal to ensure adequate medical attention in itself constitutes particularly cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and therefore contravenes article 16 of the Convention. 5.15 In conclusion, the complainant requests the Committee to find that the present communication is admissible, as it meets all the requirements under article 22 (5) of the Convention; to find that the complainant’s continued detention pending extradition lacks any legal basis in domestic law; and, accordingly, to request the State party to release him immediately. Additional information from the complainant 6.1 On 10 January 2019, the complainant reiterated that he was being held at Tiflet 2 prison after being transferred there with a view to his extradition to Egypt, where he would be in danger of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment. He recalled that his health has significantly deteriorated since his transfer to Tiflet 2 prison, where he does not receive appropriate medical care. 6.2 He stated that on 13 September 2018 he filed a complaint against the prison administration for medical negligence, attempted murder and corruption (complaint registered under No. 55/53). He reported in particular having received expired medication unfit for consumption. After filing his complaint, he appeared before the prison governor on 10 October 2018 and the Crown Prosecutor on 10 December 2018. 6.3 Given his worrisome state of health, the complainant asked the Committee to consider his complaint as soon as possible. State party’s additional observations 7. On 11 January 2019, the State party reiterated the arguments set out in its note verbale of 22 May 2017, according to which the complaint should be found inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of available domestic remedies or, in the alternative, as without merit. 13 GE.19-22535 The complainant fears that this measure is in retaliation for the present complaint before the Committee and that he is being subjected to the same treatment as Mr. Abdul Rahman Alhaj Ali (CAT/C/58/D/682/2015). 7