CAT/C/68/D/826/2017 Morocco should have examined the notice issued against him more closely and should have ignored it, in line with articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of INTERPOL. 18 5.10 The complainant requests that he be released and be accorded international protection in the State party’s territory or in a safe third country. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the complaint is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that the State party argues that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies and invokes the possibility of an application for revocation. The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument, which the State party does not contest, regarding the special nature of this remedy, which does not have suspensive effect and therefore provides no guarantee of satisfaction. The Committee observes that, pursuant to article 563 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure, this remedy offers the possibility of challenging decisions of the Court of Cassation in the following situations: (a) if the judgment was handed down on the basis of documents recognized to be forgeries; (b) if necessary to correct obvious material errors; (c) to overturn a court decision for lack of reasoning in the judgment; and (d) to quash decisions based on grounds that were considered authentic but have proved to be false. The Committee also notes that in the present case the complainant raises the risk of being tortured by the Turkish authorities if he is extradited to Turkey. It considers, therefore, that, given the specific requirements of article 563 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant’s claim that he would be at risk of torture would not appear to be a possible subject for an application for revocation. The State party has neither indicated nor demonstrated the contrary. In addition, the Committee recalls that, in order to be effective, a remedy must offer the possibility of close, rigorous scrutiny of the complainant’s grievance and of a particularly prompt response. 19 Moreover, the suspensive effect of a remedy is one of the essential procedural guarantees in expulsion proceedings, since suspension is intended to prevent possible violations of the principle of non-refoulement and thus to ensure the full implementation of article 3 of the Convention. 20 6.3 The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and recalls that in the present case, in accordance with the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant was only required to apply for remedies that are directly related to the risk of being subjected to torture in Turkey. 21 The Committee notes that the State party has not specified how an application for revocation of the Court of Cassation’s decision of 10 May 2017 could affect the complainant’s extradition to Turkey, as it has not indicated whether this remedy has suspensive effect. The Committee also notes that the State party has not refuted the complainant’s allegation that applications for revocation do not have suspensive effect. In addition, the State party has not indicated whether the complainant’s grievance could be invoked in application for revocation proceedings. The Committee recalls that in several cases that have been brought to its attention, the Head of Government has signed the extradition decree before the Court of Cassation has even issued a decision on the application for revocation,22 thereby confirming that it considered the judgment of the Court of Cassation to be final and to have the force of res judicata. Considering that Moroccan 18 19 20 21 22 6 See Constitution of INTERPOL, I/CONS/GA/1956 (2017). European Court of Human Rights, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, application No. 30696/09, judgment of 21 January 2011, para. 293. Committee’s general comment No. 4, paras. 13, 18 (e) and 34. Gharsallah v. Morocco (CAT/C/64/D/810/2017), para. 7.4; and Kalinichenko v. Morocco (CAT/C/47/D/428/2010), para. 14.3. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 4, para. 34. See R.A.Y. v. Morocco (CAT/C/52/D/525/2012), paras. 6.3 and 6.4. GE.19-22197