CAT/C/MAR/CO/4 as offences, which can be defined as such even if they do not necessarily involve an actual risk of violent action. In addition, under this law, the period during which a person may be held in police custody is extended to 12 days, and access to a lawyer is not permitted until after the sixth day, which places suspects who are being held in custody at greater risk of torture. It is precisely while they cannot communicate with their families and lawyers that suspects are most vulnerable to torture (arts. 2 and 11). The State party should revise Anti-Terrorism Act No. 03-03 in order to improve the definition of terrorism set forth therein, reduce the maximum amount of time during which a person can be held in police custody to the absolute minimum and permit access to counsel at the start of the period of detention. The Committee recalls that under the Convention no exceptional circumstance whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture and that, in accordance with various resolutions of the Security Council, notably Security Council resolutions 1456 (2003) and 1566 (2004), and other resolutions on the subject, any measure taken to combat terrorism must fully comply with international human rights law. Non-refoulement and the risk of torture 9. The Committee is concerned by the fact that the State party’s existing extradition and refoulement procedures and practices may put persons at risk of torture. The Committee recalls that it has received individual complaints against the State party under article 22 of the Convention regarding extradition requests and it is concerned by the decisions and action taken by the State party in these cases. The Committee is disturbed by the State party’s current decision to do nothing more than “suspend” the extradition of Mr. Ktiti, given that the Committee has already decided that his extradition would also constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention and that this final decision has been duly transmitted to the State party.2 The Committee is also deeply concerned about the fact that Mr. Alexey Kalinichenko was extradited to his country of origin even though the Committee had requested that his extradition be temporarily suspended until it had issued its final decision, especially since his extradition was carried out solely on the basis of diplomatic assurances provided by Mr. Kalinichenko’s country of origin (art. 3). The State party should under no circumstance expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee recalls that it has adopted the position that under no circumstances should a State party regard diplomatic assurances as being a safeguard against torture or ill-treatment when there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return. In order to determine the applicability of the obligations that it has assumed under article 3 of the Convention, the State party should thoroughly examine the merits of each individual case, including the overall situation with regard to torture in the country concerned. It should also establish and apply well-defined procedures for eliciting diplomatic assurances, together with appropriate judicial oversight mechanisms and effective post-return monitoring arrangements for use in the event of refoulement. Morocco should fulfil its international obligations and act in accordance with final and provisional decisions of the Committee concerning individual cases submitted to it under article 22 of the Convention. In the case of Mr. Ktiti, the State party should declare the extradition order to be permanently null and void in order to avoid acting in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 2 4 Committee against Torture, decision No. 419/2010 of 26 May 2011. GE.11-47997