Advance unedited version CAT/C/67/D/857/2017 while he denies being a member or even knowing about the existence of such an organization, and claims to have been tortured while being held incommunicado for 12 days and forced to sign a confession. The Committee also notes that in 2006, the European Court of Human Rights has already found that the complainant has been a victim, of a violation by Turkey of his rights under article 5(3) and (4) of the Convention as to his unlawful and arbitrary detention in Diyarbakir police headquarters in 2001, and lack of access to lawyer and judicial examination of his detention. 9.6 The Committee must take into account the current situation of human rights in Turkey, including the impact of the state of emergency (lifted in July 2018). The Committee notes that systematic extensions of the state of emergency in Turkey led to serious violations of human rights against hundreds of thousands of people, including arbitrary deprivation of the right to work and freedom of movement, torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and violations of the rights to freedom of association and expression.15 9.7 The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Turkey, issued in 2016, in which it noted with concern that “despite the fact that the State party has amended its law to the effect that torture is no longer subject to a statute of limitations, … [the Committee] has not received sufficient information on prosecutions for torture, including in the context of cases involving allegations of torture that have been the subject of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee is also concerned that there is a significant disparity between the high number of allegations of torture reported by non-governmental organizations and the data provided by the State party in its periodic report, suggesting that not all allegations of torture have been investigated during the reporting period.” 16 The Committee highlighted its concern about “recent amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which give the police greater powers to detain individuals without judicial oversight during police custody”.17 The Committee also regretted the “lack of complete information on suicides and other sudden deaths in detention facilities during the period under review (arts. 2, 11 and 16)”.18 The Committee takes note of the fact that the concluding observations in question were issued prior to the declaration of the state of emergency. However, the Committee notes that reports published since the declaration of the state of emergency on the situation of human rights and the prevention of torture in Turkey indicate that the concerns raised by the Committee remain relevant. 19 9.8 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant’s asylum application was refused in Serbia on the grounds that Montenegro should be responsible for his asylum application. Thus, there was an assumption that the complainant would be removed to Montenegro where the local authorities would examine his asylum claims on the merits, or in case of his extradition, the State party’s courts would assess the risk of torture that such an extradition would entail for the complainant in view of the general human rights situation in Turkey and the complainant’s personal circumstances. As a result, the Committee observes that neither the Asylum Office nor the courts have carried an assessment of the risk of torture that the complainant would be exposed to following an extradition to Turkey. The documents before the Committee show that the Minister of Justice of Serbia also did not carry out an assessment if the charges against the complainant were of a political nature, as it was required by the decision of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad and the Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, before signing the decision to extradite the complainant. The 15 16 17 18 19 See Ayden v. Morocco, para. 8.6; also, OHCHR, “Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East: January–December 2017”, March 2018. Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Turkey (CAT/C/TUR/CO/4), para. 9. Ibid., para. 19. Ibid., para. 33. See Ayden v. Morocco, para. 8.7; Erdogan v. Morocco (CAT/C/66/DR/827/2017), para. 9.7; Onder v. Morocco (CAT/C/66/DR/845/2017), para. 7.7; also, OHCHR, “Report on the human rights situation in South-East Turkey: July 2015 to December 2016”, February 2017; and OHCHR, “Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East: January–December 2017”, March 2018. See also the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to Turkey (A/HRC/37/50/Add.1).