CAT/C/54/D/542/2013 11.7 The Committee further notes the complainant’s argument that the criminal prosecution against him in Uzbekistan was discontinued in 2002, owing to the absence of corpus delicti, even if this is not supported by any documents. At the same time, the Committee notes that the search of the complainant was initiated by the Uzbek authorities only on 26 April 2012, i.e. 10 years after the decision of the Fergana City Court allegedly became final, and that the State party failed to clarify the reasons for such a belated request. 11.8 The Committee recalls that, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it will give considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, but that the Committee is not bound by such findings and has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, to carry out a free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 7 In the present case, the Committee observes that the extradition request was made by the Uzbek authorities 10 years after the complainant’s sentence became final and executory, during which time the complainant lived freely in Uzbekistan, obtained a certificate of having no criminal record, a passport and an exit visa and travelled freely on a number of occasions to the Russian Federation. It also notes that, in fact, the extradition request was issued shortly after the complainant filed a complaint with the Committee, against the extradition of his brother to Uzbekistan, which, viewed in the light of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations in that country, raise sufficient reasons to believe that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture upon extradition. The Committee considers that, in these circumstances, the authorities and the courts of the State party were obliged to duly verify the claims of the complainant and assess under national and international provisions the possible risk of torture run by the complainant. From the material on file, it cannot be concluded that the domestic authorities, including the courts, have made sufficient efforts to address the concerns raised by the complainant about the time-barred extradition request and to assess his personal circumstances in the light of the general human rights situation in Uzbekistan. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the State party’s authorities have failed in their duty to adequately address the complainant’s claims that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture upon return to Uzbekistan. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that, in the circumstances of the present case, by proceeding with the complainant’s extradition to Uzbekistan, the State party breached its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 11.9 Regarding the procurement from Uzbekistan of diplomatic assurances to the State party being sufficient protection against a manifest risk, the Committee recalls that such assurances cannot be used as an instrument to avoid the application of the principle of nonrefoulement. In addition, the Committee notes that the State party has failed to provide any sufficiently specific details as to whether it has engaged in any form of post-expulsion monitoring and whether it has taken any steps to ensure that the monitoring is objective, impartial and sufficiently trustworthy. 12. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the facts before it reveal a breach by the State party of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. 13. In conformity with article 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to provide redress for the complainant, including his return to the Russian Federation and adequate compensation. It wishes to be informed, within 90 days, of the steps taken by the State party to respond to the present Views. 7 10 General comment No. 1 and, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010.