CAT/C/68/D/826/2017 5.3 Lastly, the complainant refers to the high cost of the application for revocation – the equivalent of €100 – if the appeal is dismissed. In view of the finances of the complainant, who is in prison pending extradition and does not have family in Morocco, the deposit requirement is onerous and beyond what he can afford. 5.4 In his observations of 26 May 2018, the complainant clarifies the subject of the appeal, explaining that it is not the arrest procedure in Morocco, nor the terms of the mutual assistance agreement concluded between Morocco and Turkey, but rather the judicial opinion handed down by the Court of Cassation and the extradition-related proceedings that ensued. The State party has failed to meet its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 5.5 The Court of Cassation has not applied article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has not verified whether the request for the complainant’s extradition is political in nature, while in the Turkish extradition case file there is a glaring gap between the unfounded evidence adduced by Turkey – detailed statements presented without material evidence, legitimate financial transactions, personal notes and correspondence exchanged between the complainant and his businessmen friends – and the grave and serious charges in connection with terrorism and the financing of terrorism. This clear and considerable discrepancy should be sufficient in and of itself to prompt the State party to give greater consideration to the complainant’s allegations and, consequently, to have serious doubts about the hidden nature of the extradition request. Assessing such a discrepancy is the essence of article 721 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure and article 3 of the Convention. 5.6 Although the Court of Cassation is not competent to assess the essential legal value of the evidence contained in the extradition request, it does have full legal capacity and competence to assess the evidence in relation to the other elements of the case, in accordance with the provisions of article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 3 of the Convention. The Court of Cassation has the right to question the hidden reasons behind the request for the complainant’s extradition and to take real and concrete steps to make an informed decision. 5.7 The State party does not explain how it was able to conclude that the complainant was involved in the acts with which he is charged by Turkey, especially since it maintains that the Court of Cassation cannot assess the merits of the case linked to the extradition request. According to the testimony of a person who knows the complainant, he is a religious moderate bearing no resemblance to the description of him provided by his country’s Government. 5.8 The complainant notes that the principle of non-refoulement established in article 3 of the Convention applies to both expulsion and extradition. 5.9 Lastly, the complainant refers to paragraph 6 of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22,15 arguing that the Committee interprets article 3 of the Convention as a provision that imposes on the State party an obligation to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if expelled, returned or extradited. All legal means of assessing the risk of torture are legitimate and should be explored, including the assessment of the general human rights situation in Turkey. The extension of the state of emergency in Turkey has led to grave human rights violations, including serious acts of torture, as reported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in its report of 20 March 2018. 16 The use of torture, arbitrary detention and arbitrary deprivation of the right to work and the right to freedom of movement, expression and association was also denounced in the 2017 report. 17 The complainant also notes that the German authorities have criticized Turkey for misuse of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) since the attempted coup d’état in 2016. In the complainant’s view, the INTERPOL National Central Bureau in 15 16 17 GE.19-22197 This general comment was replaced on 6 December 2017 by general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22. OHCHR, Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East: January–December 2017, March 2018, paras. 7, 77, 81 and 83. OHCHR, Report on the human rights situation in South-East Turkey, July 2015 to December 2016, February 2017. 5