CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 communication, in which counsel for Mr. Kalinichenko expressed concern that his client could be in danger of being subjected to torture if extradited to the Russian Federation. The delay in dealing with the communication harmed his standing in the criminal case, since the search and arrest warrant issued by the Russian courts was the only document justifying his detention. Moreover, the Supreme Court had turned down an application for his temporary release on the ground that the judicial process had run its course. 9.3 The State party notes that it does not have any information since 14 May 2011 about the complainant’s whereabouts or his state of health. It notes that the Russian authorities have given an undertaking to ensure the complainant’s right to a defence, including the right to receive the assistance of lawyers in the Russian Federation in accordance with international law norms and the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, together with the other fundamental freedoms provided for under treaties and related protocols adopted by the United Nations and the Council of Europe. The authorities have stated that he will be allowed to leave the Russian Federation after the preliminary inquiry and investigation processes have been completed or after serving his sentence, if convicted. The Russian authorities have also undertaken to allow the Committee against Torture to visit the complainant in the prison where he will be held and to speak to him alone and in private. A representative of the Moroccan Embassy in Moscow will join the Committee when it visits the prison to check on his conditions of detention and to ensure that the necessary guarantees have been provided in this case. Additional submission by the complainant 10.1 On 23 June 2011, the complainant submitted further information and noted that on 14 May 2011, around 6.30 p.m., he was notified of his liberation from detention; however when he left the prison, he was re-detained in the interior court yard of the prison by four unknown men in plain-clothes. He was handcuffed and brought to the airport in Casablanca. At the airport, he was met by the Russian Consul and an escort. Without any further explanations or official documents, the complainant was put on the plane and flown to the Russian Federation. 10.2 The complainant further noted that he was detained in the remand prison No. 1 of Yekaterinburg and that on 9 June 2011, he was taken to the psychiatric clinic. After he refused to change his clothes for the clinic clothes and following several meetings with the head of the clinic, the complainant was returned to the remand prison; however he continued to be threatened with internment. 10.3 The complainant further shares with the Committee a document addressed to the Russian investigation officials, in which he states that he will refuse to cooperate in any investigation until he is provided with the official documentation by the Ministry and the Moroccan authorities on the legality of his extradition. He submits that his detention is therefore arbitrary. 11. On 30 June 2011, the complainant’s parents submitted that, on 27 June 2011, the complainant was forcibly placed in psychiatric care of the Sverdlovsk Regional Clinical Psychiatric Hospital. On 28 June 2011, his lawyer was refused a visit without permission from the investigator. On 30 June 2011, despite the authorization of the investigator to visit the complainant, the lawyer was refused access. The family further highlights that according to the Law on Mental Health, any involuntary hospitalization needs to be authorized by a court; however no court decision has been received by the lawyer or the complainant’s parents. The complainant’s parents further submit that during his detention on remand, the author was kept in solitary confinement in freezing conditions without appropriate clothing, constant light and that he was ill-treated. 11