CAT/C/68/D/826/2017 of July 2016, in particular for persons who, like the complainant, are perceived to be, or actually are, members of the Fethullah terrorist organization/Parallel State Structure. The Committee notes that the authorities of the State party merely ascertained that the form and substance of the request for the complainant’s extradition received from the Turkish authorities is in conformity with the Agreement on Mutual Assistance signed by the two countries on 15 May 1989, prior to the ratification of the Convention by the State party on 21 June 1993, without assessing the risk of the complainant being subjected to torture if extradited to Turkey from the standpoint of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the primary aim of the Convention is to prevent torture.42 7.11 In the light of the above, and having regard to the complainant’s profile as a member – whether perceived or real – of the Fethullah terrorist organization/Parallel State Structure, the Committee is of the view that the State party should have conducted an individualized assessment of the real and personal risk to which the complainant would be exposed in Turkey, particularly bearing in mind the documented treatment by the Turkish authorities of persons associated with this movement, rather than basing its decision on the assumption that the extradition request had been made in accordance with an agreement between the two countries and that the offences of which the complainant was accused were offences under ordinary law that are also offences under Moroccan criminal law. The Committee also considers that article 721 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically mention the risk of torture and ill-treatment in the event of extradition, but only the risk of worsening the personal situation of individuals who are the subject of extradition requests for reasons linked to their race, religion, nationality or political opinions, when the offence for which their extradition is requested is considered by the State party to be a political offence, or an offence related to a political offence. 43 In the present case, on the basis of the findings of the Court of Cassation sitting as a court of extradition, the Committee cannot conclude that the Court gave consideration to the argument that there was a present, foreseeable, real and personal risk of the complainant being subjected to torture if extradited to Turkey. 44 8. The Committee, acting under article 2 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the complainant’s extradition to Turkey would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee is of the view that,45 in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, the State party is required to: (a) Refrain from extraditing the complainant to Turkey and consider the request for his extradition in the light of its obligations under the Convention. Given that he has been in pretrial detention for more than two years, the State party is also under an obligation to release him;46 (b) Ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future by carrying out individual assessments of the real risk of torture and ill-treatment – including by taking into consideration the general human rights situation in the country of return – every time it considers an extradition request under an agreement or an extradition procedure. 10. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above. 42 43 44 45 46 10 Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.5. See footnote 14. Erdoğan v. Morocco, para. 9.11; Onder v. Morocco (CAT/C/66/D/845/2017), para. 7.11; and Ayden v. Morocco (CAT/C/66/D/846/2017), para. 8.11. Erdoğan v. Morocco, para. 11; Onder v. Morocco, para. 9; and Ayden v. Morocco, para. 10. See Alhaj Ali v. Morocco, para. 9. GE.19-22197