CAT/C/66/D/845/2017 movement, expression and association had already been denounced in the 2017 report. 12 The complainant also notes that the German authorities have criticized Turkey for misuse of the International Criminal Police Organization-INTERPOL since the 2016 attempted coup d’état. In his view, the national INTERPOL office in Turkey should have examined the notice issued against him more closely and should have dismissed it, in line with articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of INTERPOL. 13 5.7 The complainant requests that he be released and be accorded international protection in the State party’s territory or in a safe third country. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it does not consider any complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the complainant did not mention before the Court of Cassation the risk of torture in cases of extradition to Turkey. However, it also notes that when the complainant was brought before the Court of Cassation, he opposed his extradition by arguing, inter alia, that he would be in danger if he was extradited, that he was subject to political persecution and that he had applied for refugee status for these reasons. The Committee is of the view that the fact that the complainant made these arguments before the Court of Cassation is sufficient to consider that he did effectively invoke the risks in question and notes that the State party has not claimed that other domestic remedies were available to the complainant. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible under article 22 of the Convention with respect to the alleged violation of article 3 and proceeds to consider it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the complainant’s extradition to Turkey would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee recalls, first and foremost, that the prohibition against torture is absolute and non-derogable and that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture. 14 The principle of the non-refoulement of persons to States where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture, which is set out in article 3 of the Convention, is also absolute. 15 12 13 14 15 6 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Report on the human rights situation in South-East Turkey, July 2015 to December 2016”, February 2017. International Criminal Police Organization-INTERPOL, Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization-INTERPOL, I/CONS/GA/1956 (2017). The Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, para. 5. The Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 9. GE.19-10568