CAT/C/64/D/810/2017 the alleged victim stated that he had no fear of being tried by the Tunisian judicial authorities. Article 721 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the State party’s authorities are obliged to refuse to extradite a person where there are substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition has been made for the sole purpose of prosecuting the person on account of his or her political opinions or any other discriminatory grounds. What is more, the arrest was made under the legal framework for mutual assistance in criminal matters and extradition between Tunisia and Morocco. The State party submits that, in the present case, its authorities did not find that extradition would entail any risk of torture. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 30 June 2017, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s submission. Firstly, she reports that the State party has not extradited the alleged victim to Tunisia and has thus complied with the request for interim measures made by the Committee on 6 March 2017. 5.2 The complainant goes on to state that what Mr. Gharsallah actually indicated at his hearing before the Crown Prosecutor of the Court of First Instance of Tangier was that he would not agree to appear before a Tunisian court unless his physical safety and an apolitical and fair trial could be guaranteed; in his view, those two conditions had not been met. The complainant recalls that those conditions also formed the basis of the appeal that Mr. Haddad filed with the Court of Cassation on behalf of the alleged victim. 5.3 With regard to the State party’s allegation that an application for revocation of the decision of the Court of Cassation could have been filed under articles 563 and 564 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant submits that this remedy is applicable in exceptional circumstances and constitutes a special remedy. She states that the present case does not qualify as one of these exceptional situations. The complainant adds that this remedy does not, in practice, have suspensive effect, in the absence of any reference in that regard in articles 563 and 564 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She therefore did not believe it necessary to file an application for revocation, which offered her no guarantee of satisfaction because the existence of such an appeal pending before the Court of Cassation would not have prevented the State party from extraditing the alleged victim. In this connection, the complainant refers to a case considered by the Committee 17 in which the Head of Government of Morocco signed an extradition order validating a decision of the Court of Cassation in favour of extradition even before that Court had ruled on an application for revocation, thus confirming that the decision of the Court of Cassation was not, in practice, open to appeal. Accordingly, she asks the Committee to recognize the futility of domestic remedies and to find that the present communication is admissible, as it meets all the requirements under article 22 (5) of the Convention. 5.4 As to the political nature of the request for extradition made by the requesting State, the complainant maintains that the reason that the National Fact-Finding Commission filed a complaint against the alleged victim was that he belonged to the political party of former President Ben Ali. Moreover, she indicates that the international arrest warrant was issued by chamber No. 19 of the Court of Tunis, despite the absence of any evidence against the alleged victim. She concludes that these proceedings were introduced by an executive body of a political nature that was given exceptional powers under a transitional government. 5.5 With regard to the lawfulness of detention pending extradition, the complainant recalls that article 44 of the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation limits the period of detention to 30 days from the date of arrest, in the absence of a request for extension from the requesting State. In the present case, she notes that this time limit has long since been exceeded, as the alleged victim has been in detention since 22 September 2016. Therefore, the complainant submits that her husband’s detention can no longer be justified. For these reasons, she is submitting to the Committee a new request for interim 17 GE.18-15280 The complainant refers to the case of Al Hashimi v. Morocco. However, the consideration of that case was discontinued because Oman withdrew its extradition request and the complainant was released by the Moroccan authorities. 5