CAT/C/64/D/810/2017 measures consisting of the immediate release of the alleged victim and his continued freedom pending the Committee’s decision on the merits of the present communication. 5.6 On 20 July 2017, the complainant transmitted to the Committee a letter from the lawyer who represented the alleged victim in the proceedings held in Morocco, Mr. Haddad, attesting to the deterioration of the mental health of his client, who remains in detention, and stating that the latter was having suicidal thoughts. 18 Mr. Haddad indicates that the authorities of the State party have provided assurances that the alleged victim will be released as soon as the Committee takes a decision to that effect. State party’s observations on the merits and on the complainant’s comments 6.1 By a note verbale dated 8 September 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the present communication. It reiterates its arguments concerning the allegedly political nature of the extradition request by recalling that the arrest was based on an international arrest warrant issued by a Tunisian court in respect of a criminal offence, that the arrest was ordered by the Crown Prosecutor and that it could even have been challenged before the Court of Cassation. The State party goes on to recall that although the extradition order was approved by the Head of Government,19 the extradition was suspended in response to the Committee’s request for interim measures. In that context, the State party reiterates that the extradition request can by no means be described as political in nature. 6.2 As to the claim regarding the risk of torture in the event of extradition to Tunisia, the State party reiterates the arguments it put forward in its previous observations on admissibility. It recalls, inter alia, that the alleged victim stated that he had no objection to appearing before the Tunisian courts and that both Moroccan law 20 and the Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and Extradition between Morocco and Tunisia of 1964 set forth guarantees that are sufficient to ensure that requests for extradition are refused if they are of a discriminatory or political nature. The authorities of the State party claim that they have not identified any risk of torture in the specific case of the alleged victim. They submit, accordingly, that they have not violated any of the provisions of the Convention. 6.3 On 28 September 2017, the State party provided clarifications with regard to the Committee’s most recent request for interim measures, dated 7 August 2017. It indicates that an investigation conducted by the Moroccan authorities concluded that the conditions in which Mr. Gharsallah is being held are adequate in relation to his state of health, as he is being treated on the same footing, without distinction, as any other person being held in Moroccan prisons. Moreover, the detainee is said to be fully entitled to receive family visits and to correspond with his counsel. With regard to Mr. Gharsallah’s state of health, the State party claims that he has been afforded all necessary medical assistance. According to the State party, the alleged victim has been treated for mild respiratory distress. Concerning his vision problems, the State party indicates that a visit to an ophthalmologist accredited to the prison has already been scheduled. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted 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. 18 19 20 6 Nevertheless, the complainant has not produced a medical certificate attesting to the deterioration of her husband’s state of health. The State party does not specify the date of that decision or attach a copy of it to its correspondence. The State party refers here to article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. GE.18-15280