CAT/C/58/D/682/2015 established that the evidence was assessed in a patently arbitrary manner or one that amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 15 8.8 The Committee notes that, when the Court of Cassation in Rabat authorized the extradition, it failed to assess the risk of torture that such a measure would entail for Mr. Alhaj Ali, bearing in mind the situation in Saudi Arabia, particularly for foreign workers, and the specific risk faced by the individual concerned, given that persons found guilty of breach of trust are liable to corporal punishment in Saudi Arabia. Although the State party put forward the general argument that the Moroccan authorities “believed that Mr. Alhaj Ali would not be at personal risk if handed over to the requesting judicial authorities” (para. 4.11), no explanation was provided as to how that risk was assessed in order to ensure that the extradition of Mr. Alhaj Ali would not put him at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 8.9 The Committee recalls that the prohibition against torture is absolute and nonderogable, and that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture [see the Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007) on implementation of article 2 by States parties]. In light of all the above, and given the nature of the punishment of which Mr. Alhaj Ali is at risk if he is extradited, the Committee concludes that the complainant has sufficiently demonstrated that Mr. Alhaj Ali would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if extradited to Saudi Arabia, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the extradition of Mr. Alhaj Ali to Saudi Arabia would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. Since he has been in pretrial detention for almost 2 years, the State party is obliged to release him or to try him if charges are brought against him in Morocco. 10. The Committee urges the State party, in accordance with rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of this decision, of the steps taken in response to this decision. 15 GE.16-15793 See communication No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.7. 13