CAT/C/67/D/857/2017 Advance unedited version from Turkey and without properly examining the risks of refoulement. The complainant again appealed this decision on 22 March 2017 to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad. 2.12 On 12 April 2017, the Appellate Court in Novi Sad again conducted a hearing during which the complainant stated that he was a victim of torture and the criminal case against him was of a political nature. On the same day, the Appellate Court in Novi Sad again ordered the Higher Court in Šabac to properly question the complainant and to provide a correct translation of the documents received from Turkey. 2.13 On 12 October 2017, for the third time, the Higher Court in Šabac decided there were no obstacles to the complainant’s extradition to Turkey. The complainant again appealed this decision on 20 October 2017 to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad. 2.14 A hearing before the Appellate Court in Novi Sad was scheduled for 22 November 2017. However, on 9 November, the complainant’s lawyer received a phone call from one of the judges of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad who informed her that the hearing was rescheduled for the 15 November 2017. The judge also said that the change was requested by the Ministry of Justice who insisted that the case must be resolved before 30 November, because the extradition detention could not last longer than 1 year. This was necessary so that the Minister of Justice could render the final decision on the extradition in a timely manner. 2.15 On 15 November 2017, the Appellate Court in Novi Sad again quashed the decision of the Higher Court in Novi Sad and instructed it to hold a hearing in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, to translate the documentation received from Turkey on the basis of which it can be determined which specific criminal offence the complainant was accused of and sentenced for. 2.16 On 22 November 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees intervened reminding the State party’s authorities of the ongoing asylum proceedings and the importance of examining the complainant’s claims of persecution on merits. 2.17 On 30 November 2017, the Higher Court in Šabac held a hearing where the complainant’s lawyer reminded the court that the complainant had applied for an asylum in Serbia and due to expiry of maximum of pre-trial detention (1 year expired on that day) he should be released and referred to the asylum camp in Banja Koviljača. After the hearing, the complainant and his lawyers were notified that a decision repealing the detention would be delivered to the correctional institution in Šabac, where complainant was held in detention, by the end of the day, after which the complainant would be released. 2.18 However, later on the same day, while his lawyer waited outside of the prison gates for the complainant to be released, the police secretly transferred the complainant to the detention center for foreigners in Padinska Skela. After learning about this from the prison guards, the complainant’s lawyer arrived at 00h30 on 1 December at the detention center for foreigners and asked for the decision on the complainant's detention. Her request was denied. At 09h00 on 1 December 2017, the lawyer received the decision on extradition by the Higher Court in Šabac, rendered on the same day, stating that all prerequisites for the complainant's removal to Turkey were met in line with articles 7 and 16 of the Law on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. 2.19 Later on 1 December 2017, the complainant’s lawyer again went to the detention center to visit the complainant and to obtain the decision on his detention. However, she was only allowed to see the letter signed by the president of the Higher Court in Šabac, in which the court president informed the detention center for foreigners that the complainant's detention was repealed and replaced with another measure - prohibition of leaving his temporary place of residence in Banja Koviljača. In the same letter, the court president stated that, because all accommodation capacities in Banja Koviljača Asylum Centre were full, it was necessary to detain the complainant in Padinska Skela. The complainant’s lawyer was not allowed to make a copy of the above-mentioned letter. The manager of the detention center informed the complainant’s lawyer that the complainant was detained there on the basis of the above letter. According to the Law on Foreigners, the detention center for foreigners is an institution for accommodation of foreigners who are not allowed to enter the country or who are to be expelled from the country. 4