CAT/C/66/D/845/2017 4.8 As regards the complainant’s claim that the evidence justifying the arrest warrant was based on testimonies obtained by coercion, the State party notes that the Court of Cassation is not permitted to express on opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the person whose extradition is requested and that the competent Turkish judicial authorities scrupulously comply with the rules of fair trial and international instruments. Accordingly, this claim was deemed inadmissible by the Court of Cassation. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 The complainant submitted his responses to the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint on 26 May 2018. He clarifies the subject matter of his complaint, namely, that it rests on the legal opinion issued by the Court of Cassation and the extradition proceedings that followed. He believes that, given the circumstances, the State party failed to fulfil its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 5.2 The complainant reiterates that he invoked his fear of being persecuted if extradited to his country of origin before the Court of Cassation and informed the Court of the asylum request that he had submitted to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In this context, he believes that the Court failed to obtain assurances that the extradition request was not politically motivated. In particular, the Court failed to consider the fact that the extradition request submitted by Turkey rested on evidence that provided insufficient grounds to charge the complainant with the serious offence of membership of an armed terrorist group. This failure to assess the evidence runs counter to the spirit of article 3 of the Convention. 5.3 The complainant states that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if extradited to Turkey and is of the view that, while the Court of Cassation may not be competent to assess the merit of the evidence contained in the extradition request, it should nevertheless consider whether there are hidden reasons for the request and should rule accordingly. Furthermore, the Court, being composed of judges, legal practitioners and legal experts, has the capacity to assess whether the law that classifies the Hizmet movement as a terrorist association respects the right to a fair trial and the right to a defence. 5.4 Decree-Law No. 667, establishing a state of emergency in Turkey, extended the maximum duration of police custody from 4 to 30 days, thereby increasing the risk of torture and ill-treatment in detention. Decree-Law No. 676 provides that the public prosecutor may prevent a suspect from speaking with his or her lawyer for up to five days. The complainant therefore believes that he has no hope of a fair trial in Turkey. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has highlighted that more than 4,200 judges have been dismissed by decree of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors; that around 570 lawyers have been arrested; and that 34 bar associations have been shut down for allegedly being members of the Hizmet movement. The Office has also noted a tendency to persecute lawyers representing persons accused of belonging to this movement.10 5.5 The complainant notes that the principle of non-refoulement provided for in article 3 of the Convention applies to both expulsion and extradition. 5.6 The complainant refutes the State party’s claim that the Court of Cassation is not competent to assess the human rights situation in the country requesting extradition, as it has a duty under article 3 of the Convention to consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he or she was extradited. The extension of the state of emergency in Turkey has led to grave human rights violations, including acts of torture, as reported by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in its report of 20 March 2018. 11 The use of torture, arbitrary detention and arbitrary deprivation of the right to work and of freedom of 10 11 GE.19-10568 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East, January to December 2017”, March 2018. Ibid. 5