CAT/C/68/D/826/2017 Turkey announced that it intended to derogate from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) in line with article 15. In a resolution of 25 April 2017, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expressed its deep concern about the human rights situation in Turkey and noted that “eight months after the attempted coup, the situation has deteriorated and measures have gone far beyond what is necessary and proportionate.”6 The Parliamentary Assembly also highlighted that large-scale purges had been carried out in the public administration,7 that a large number of individuals had been arrested and kept in custody waiting indictment, 8 that many civil servants had been dismissed, and that the measures taken against them, which included cancelling their passports, banning them from ever working again in the public administration and withdrawing their access to the social security system, amounted to the “civil death” of the persons concerned. 9 In the Parliamentary Assembly’s view, respect for fundamental rights was not guaranteed in Turkey.10 In view of all these circumstances, the complainant faces a personal risk of being subjected to torture if he returns to his country. 11 3.3 Furthermore, the Greek Supreme Court has refused to extradite eight Turkish soldiers on the grounds that the Greek courts could not in good conscience agree to extradite them to Turkey, a country where the Court judged there to be a risk of the death penalty being reintroduced, where there is evidence of political dissidents being subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment, and, lastly, where there is no fair trial in the strict sense of the word. 3.4 The complainant therefore faces a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being subjected to torture if extradited to Turkey. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 7 August 2017, the State party contested the admissibility of the complaint. It specifies that the Moroccan authorities received the request for the complainant’s extradition to Turkey from the Turkish authorities – formally and through diplomatic channels – on the basis of the Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and Extradition concluded between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Republic of Turkey on 15 May 1989. On 10 May 2017, the Court of Cassation ruled in favour of the extradition request, concluding that the Turkish authorities’ request was not only supported by an international arrest warrant, but also met the conditions of form and substance required by the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure and by the Agreement on Mutual Assistance. In court, the complainant fully benefited from his rights, as guaranteed by the universally recognized principles and rules of the right to a fair trial. 4.2 Even though the Court of Cassation’s decision could not be challenged through an ordinary appeal process, it could be subject to an application for revocation in accordance with articles 563 and 564 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12 The complainant has thus not exhausted all domestic remedies. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GE.19-22197 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey [resolution 2156 (2017)] para. 7. Ibid., para. 14. Ibid., para. 16. Ibid., para. 17. Ibid., para. 20. The complainant notes that a woman was subjected to acts of torture at the hands of a mob that was waiting for her at the door of the plane when she was extradited to Turkey from northern Cyprus, in plain view of police officers, but that she had been fortunate enough to escape without being lynched on the airport tarmac, which is supposed to be a high security zone. Article 563 stipulates that the 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 declared or recognized to be forgeries; (b) to correct judgments vitiated by an obvious material error and that can be remedied using material provided by the decision itself; (c) if the court has failed to rule on a request presented in the context of the presentation of evidence or if the reasoning of the decision has not been specified; and (d) if a decision of inadmissibility or termination of a case has been issued for reasons arising from elements considered to be authentic, but that are determined to be false following the submission of new documents that are equally authentic. 3