CAT/C/52/D/525/2012 The complaint 3.1 The complainant states that he is a victim of a violation of article 15 of the Convention by the State party, since the latter allegedly considered confessions obtained under torture as evidence in authorizing his extradition. The complainant adds that, if he was indeed extradited to Algeria, he would also be a victim of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 In support of his allegations of violations, the complainant first refers to the general risk of torture associated with the systematic human rights violations in Algeria, as noted by the Committee, which has stated that it is concerned at the many serious allegations which it has received of cases of torture and abuse inflicted on detainees by law enforcement officers.6 The complainant also cites the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, in which the Committee notes with concern information regarding cases of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Algeria, for which the Intelligence and Security Department reportedly has responsibility. In its concluding observations, the Human Rights Committee also indicates that it is concerned that confessions obtained under torture are not explicitly prohibited and excluded as evidence under the State party’s legislation.7 3.3 The complainant then refers to a general problem with extradition procedures in the State party. He cites the Committee against Torture, which has expressed concern at the fact that the State party’s existing extradition and refoulement procedures and practices may put some persons at risk of torture. The Committee has also indicated that, 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. 8 3.4 More specifically, the complainant argues that the accusation against him of involvement in drug trafficking is based solely on the statements of a person arrested in connection with this criminal case, A.B., which were allegedly obtained under torture. He states that, apart from these statements, there is no evidence to implicate him in this international drug trafficking. He recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence whereby, in accordance with article 15, each State party must ensure that any statements invoked as evidence in an extradition procedure have not been made as a result of torture. 9 3.5 The complainant recalls that he raised before the State party’s Court of Cassation his fear of being subjected to torture if extradited to Algeria, but he believes that the court failed to consider the risks involved properly, merely noting that, as Algeria was a party to the Convention against Torture, there was no reason to fear any risk of torture. 10 6 7 8 9 10 4 Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture concerning the third periodic report of Algeria, adopted on 13 May 2008 (CAT/C/DZA/CO/3), para. 10. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee concerning the third periodic report of Algeria, adopted on 1 November 2007 (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3), paras. 15 and 19. Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture concerning the fourth periodic report of Morocco, adopted on 17 November 2011 (CAT/C/MAR/CO/4), para. 9. The complainant cites the Committee’s jurisprudence. See communication No. 193/2001, P.E. v. France, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, and communication No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2011. The complainant did not raise before the Court of Cassation the fact that the incriminating statements used as evidence in the extradition procedure had allegedly been obtained under torture (alleged violation of article 15). Instead, he argued that “the allegations against him are simply accusations by persons who harbour hatred towards him and his family”. GE.14-05418