CAT/C/68/D/826/2017 4.3 With respect to the allegation that the extradition request is of a political nature, the Court of Cassation concluded that the acts with which the complainant has been charged in Turkey are criminal acts under Moroccan criminal law, in that they involve the establishment and command of a terrorist organization and money-laundering. Such acts cannot be considered political in nature or associated with a political offence, nor are they akin to a failure to carry out military obligations. They can also not be associated with motives or considerations linked to religion, race, nationality or political opinion. Furthermore, Moroccan criminal law is in line with the Convention and not only provides for the punishment and prevention of torture but also strictly prohibits, without exception, all acts of torture and all other acts of a similar or related nature. 4.4 On 8 December 2017, the State party submitted observations on the merits. Firstly, it sets out procedural details of the complainant’s arrest in Morocco in follow-up to the extradition request submitted by the Turkish authorities. The arrest was carried out in accordance with article 29 of the Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and Extradition concluded between the two countries. 4.5 Secondly, the State party refers to the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, which concluded that the acts with which the complainant is charged in his country of origin are offences under ordinary law, that is, terrorism offences, that also constitute offences under the Moroccan Criminal Code, and that such offences cannot be considered political in nature and are not associated with political offences. During the proceedings, the complainant fully benefited from all guarantees of a fair trial, including access to a lawyer. The State party routinely refuses extradition requests when the conditions set under article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure13 are met. There are sufficient provisions in national legislation to implement the principles of the Convention adequately. The complainant has not been subjected to any form of torture or ill-treatment in the territory of the State party. 4.6 As an extradition court, the Court of Cassation is not competent to rule on the essential legal value of the evidence contained in the extradition request. The Court considered that the extradition request was not political in nature, as the complainant was implicated in terrorism and the financing of terrorism. In essence, extradition and refoulement are two completely different legal procedures. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 29 December 2017, the complainant asserted that the application for revocation invoked by the State party is, as specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure, an exceptional remedy. It is not an ordinary appeal against a decision handed down by a court of first instance or a court of appeal, but rather an exceptional remedy against a decision handed down by the Court of Cassation itself. Thus, applications for revocation are brought not before a higher court, but before the same Court of Cassation. 5.2 Moreover, the application for revocation procedure is ineffective and would serve no purpose in the present case. Firstly, the complainant has no new points of evidence that would be decisive in the examination of his appeal by the very same court that issued the ruling in favour of his extradition. Secondly, in similar cases, applications for revocation have not been effective.14 Thirdly, an application for revocation does not have suspensive effect. This being the case, the complainant cannot be required to initiate such an appeal and to await its outcome while constantly facing the risk of being extradited and exposed to irreversible harm. 13 14 4 Article 721 stipulates that extradition will not be agreed when the offence for which it is requested is considered a political offence, or an offence connected with a political offence, by the State of Morocco. This rule applies, in particular, when the State of Morocco has substantial grounds for believing that an extradition request apparently related to an ordinary offence has in fact been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on grounds of his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or may aggravate this person’s situation for any of these reasons. The complainant refers to the case of Alhaj Ali v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/682/2015), where the complainant submitted an application for revocation of the decision of the Court of Cassation, without success. GE.19-22197