CAT/C/47/D/327/2007 that embassy officials merely reacted to events, and maintains that such an attitude is bewildering, especially as it had been deemed necessary to obtain diplomatic assurances from the destination country prior to extradition, and a visit by consular officials to the prison and a letter from the ambassador to the Governor of Zacatecas State had been enough to put an end to the ill-treatment. Referring to the State party’s observations of 28 September 2007, the complainant underlines that the consular officials had not known that the State party had obtained diplomatic assurances, and so had taken no measures to make sure that the complainant could communicate with his lawyer and embassy officials. Moreover, Canadian officials never verified whether he could do so. 8.3 The complainant considers that the State party’s assertion that he ran no risk of being tortured prior to his extradition stands in contradiction with the decision to request diplomatic assurances and with the fact that the Court of Appeal had lent more credence to his allegations of torture than to Mexico’s outright denial. He also maintains that the previous case of extradition of a Canadian had been presented without any information that might allow comparison between the two cases and in no way diminished the existence of serious and personal risks of torture in the case of the complainant. 8.4 With regard to the quality of the diplomatic assurances, the complainant maintains that even if the Minister of Justice did take into account the possibility of retaliation against the complainant because of the accusations he faced over the murder of a prison guard, the diplomatic assurances contained no measures to prevent such retaliation. Moreover, the State party failed to take steps before he was extradited to ensure that he would be safe and allowed to communicate. He also disputes the claim that a mechanism had been put in place to monitor observance of the diplomatic assurances, and insists that the action taken by consular officials came only in response to his allegations of torture, and were not part of a monitoring mechanism. The complainant also reiterates that nine months passed between the moment the State party obtained the diplomatic assurances, on 16 November 2006, and 15 August 2007, when an official of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade tried to obtain a copy of them. He points out that if embassy officials did not have a copy of the diplomatic assurances, then obviously the prison authorities and those of the State of Zacatecas would not have one either. Additional observations by the State party on admissibility 9. On 26 April 2010, the State party submitted that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because on 8 April 2010 the complainant had brought an action before the Federal Court related to the substance of the complaint before the Committee. The complainant claimed before the Federal Court that the State party had violated his rights by extraditing him to Mexico on 17 August 2007, having placed its trust in the diplomatic assurances provided, and having allegedly done nothing to ensure that those assurances were respected after the complainant was extradited. The State party maintains that the complainant had therefore not established a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication. 15 Moreover, there were no grounds for believing that the domestic remedy would be unreasonably prolonged. Additional comments by the complainant 10.1 In additional comments submitted on 30 June 2010, the complainant asserted that the action brought before the Federal Court and the communication before the Committee 15 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX). 9