CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 short of the requirement of effectiveness under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), and would not offer him any effective relief in respect to a violation of article 3, since it would not have effect of suspending the execution of the extradition order and would therefore not prevent the occurrence of irreparable harm if he was returned. 11 5.10 With regard to the diplomatic assurances of the Russian Federation, the complainant notes the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which it would not be sufficient to ensure compliance with the absolute prohibition of refoulement set out in article 3.12 It is therefore clear that the general pledge by the Russian authorities to comply with international human rights standards cannot overturn the substantial, consistent and reliable evidence indicating on the one hand, the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights, and on the other hand, the existence of a well-founded fear of being exposed to a risk of torture or other ill-treatment by local authorities of Yekaterinburg or other public officials or private individuals acting on behalf of public authorities. Given that the Russian authorities felt the need to join to their extradition request diplomatic assurances may be seen in itself as evidence of the existence of a risk of torture. 13 5.11 With regard to the State party’s allegation that the complainant failed to raise the risk of torture in the course of the procedure of the Supreme Court, the complainant notes that this allegation is manifestly untrue, as his counsel extensively argued that the extradition would expose the complainant to a serious risk of being subject to torture or even being killed. The Supreme Court however did not take into consideration the complainant’s counsel’s arguments, since the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the extradition should be denied only if there are serious reasons to believe that the request has been filed with the sole purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person for discriminatory or religious considerations or for reasons relating to his nationality or his political beliefs. The complainant therefore submits that the domestic law of Morocco does not fully comply with the requirement of article 3 of the Convention. The State party’s contention further contradicts its final statement, according to which domestic authorities found no evidence of the existence of a possibility that the applicant would likely be subjected to torture. The State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 18 February 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the merits and noted that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary in cases of extradition of offenders consists solely in handing down a decision on the extradition request by ascertaining whether the formal and objective conditions set forth in bilateral and multilateral agreements or in domestic legislation have been met and whether there exists dual criminal liability and a minimum penalty. It also establishes that the offence is not of a political or military nature, that the request is not based on racial or discriminatory grounds, and that it will not expose the wanted person to danger or to the risk of torture. 6.2 The State party reiterates that the complainant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as he did not raise the issue of torture before the Supreme Court. It notes that defence 11 12 13 See communications No. 63/1997, Arkauz Arana v. France, decision adopted on 9 November 1999, para. 6.1; No. 99/1997, T.P.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 16 May 2000, para. 10.1; see also Human Rights Committee communication No. 1086/2002, Weiss v. Austria, Views adopted on 3 April 2003, para. 8.2. See Agiza v. Sweden (footnote 10 above), paras. 13.4-13.5; see also Human Rights Committee communication No. 1416/2005, Alzery v. Sweden, Views adopted on 25 October 2006, para. 11.5. See the report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to Sweden on 2123 April 2004 (8 July 2004), paras. 17-19. 9