CAT/C/52/D/525/2012 3.6 According to the complainant, domestic remedies have indeed been exhausted, as the application for revocation filed on 23 July 2012, which was still pending when this complaint was lodged with the Committee, is a remedy existing only in civil law and would be considered marginally applicable by the Court of Cassation in a criminal case. Furthermore, the complainant considers that the application for revocation does not have suspensive effect. In this regard, the complainant stresses that the law is silent on the issue and that the extradition order was signed by the State party’s competent authorities while the application for revocation was in progress. 3.7 The complainant adds that there is no remedy in Moroccan law against the extradition order, which is an administrative act, notification of which he reportedly received during the week of 22 October 2012, while his extradition was scheduled for 15 November 2012. He maintains that the Moroccan judges are competent only to ensure that the legal requirements for extradition are met in accordance with the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure. State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 The State party contests the admissibility of the complaint on grounds of the complainant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies against the decision to extradite him to Algeria. The State party recalls that the extradition procedure has two parts: one judicial, the other administrative. 4.2 The judicial proceedings were conducted before the Court of Cassation, which issued a favourable opinion on the complainant’s extradition in its decision of 25 April 2012, the Court having taken the view that the complainant’s fears of being tortured by the Algerian authorities were unfounded. On 23 July 2012, the complainant filed an application for revocation of the Court of Cassation’s favourable opinion. On 25 November 2012, the court handed down its decision, in which it found the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, standing by its original reasons for the opinion in favour of extradition. 11 The State party explains that, contrary to the complainant’s assertions, an application for revocation is explicitly provided for in criminal cases 12 and, as such, has suspensive effect. The State party notes that the Court of Cassation has issued numerous judgements on the matter and that it has revoked several of its extradition rulings.13 The State party concludes that the complaint lodged with the Committee was “premature” and failed to comply with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.3 The State party emphasizes that the second part of the extradition procedure is administrative in nature. Specifically, it consists of the decision taken by decree by the Head of Government (Prime Minister), who must decide on the Algerian State’s extradition request, taking into account the opinion issued by the Court of Cassation and relevant legislation. In this case, the decree ordering the complainant’s extradition was signed on 14 September 2012, on the basis of the Court of Cassation’s favourable opinion issued on 25 April 2012, articles 718 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the 1963 Bilateral Agreement on Judicial Cooperation between Morocco and Algeria. The complainant’s extradition was originally scheduled for 15 November 2012 but was not carried out due to the interim measures granted by the Committee. 11 12 13 GE.14-05418 The complaint before the Committee was lodged on 25 October 2012, i.e. one month before the Court of Cassation’s decision. Articles 536 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force since 2 October 2002. Jurisprudence cited: Supreme Court judgement of 16 December 1997 in case 2204/97 (published in Supreme Court Bulletin No. 4.1999) and judgement 1143/1 of 26 July 2006 in case 4089 (unpublished) – Decisions not provided. 5