CAT/C/66/D/846/2017 extradition to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 10 Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.11 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice in this context has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.12 Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant or his family members; (c) previous torture; (d) incommunicado detention or another form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; and (e) clandestine escape from the country of origin following threats of torture. 13 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 14 8.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his extradition would make him face a serious risk of persecution and torture in detention in Turkey owing to the perception that he is a member of the Hizmet movement and the allegations made against him that he committed acts of terrorism and financed terrorism. In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant is the subject of an arrest warrant for membership of this movement, although he denies being a member, and that, according to reports in the case file, torture and ill-treatment are commonly used against persons with his profile when they are in detention. The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the Court of Cassation has not implemented article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has not verified the political nature of the request to extradite the complainant. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, Moroccan criminal law is in conformity with the Convention, as it establishes that no person may be extradited if he or she is at risk of being subjected to persecution for reasons of race, religion, political views or personal situation, or if that person may be in danger for any such reasons. 8.6 The Committee must take into account the current human rights situation in Turkey, including the impact of the state of emergency, which was lifted in July 2018 but whose restrictions have been extended through the adoption of a series of legislative measures. The Committee notes that successive extensions of the state of emergency in Turkey have 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 illtreatment, arbitrary detention and violations of the rights to freedom of association and expression.15 8.7 The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Turkey (CAT/C/TUR/CO/4), issued in 2016, in paragraph 9 of which it noted with concern that despite the fact that the State party had amended its law to the effect that torture was no longer subject to a statute of limitations, it had not received sufficient information on prosecutions for torture, including in the context of cases involving allegations of torture that had been the subject of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. It also noted 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 Alhaj Ali v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/682/2015), para. 8.3; R.A.Y. v. Morocco (CAT/C/52/D/525/2012), para. 7.2; and L.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/488/2012), para. 11.3. Kalinichenko v. Morocco (CAT/C/47/D/428/2010), para. 15.3. See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 11. Ibid., para. 45. Ibid., para. 50. 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. GE.19-10782