CAT/C/68/D/782/2016 4.8 The State party emphasizes that the complainant had been arrested in Morocco and brought before the competent public prosecution office on 26 April 2016, that he had been notified of the international arrest warrant issued against him, and that he had stated that he had already been informed of the issuance of the said arrest warrant, but had not mentioned or referred to any danger of being subjected to torture if extradited. 4.9 In addition, the Court of Cassation in Morocco issued a judgment in favour of the extradition request on 25 May 2016. The complainant did not refer to or mention before the Court any concern whatsoever regarding any danger of torture in the event of his extradition. Furthermore, legal proceedings had already been brought against the complainant in Morocco, before the Casablanca criminal court of first instance, for forgery of private business documents, unauthorized and unlawful practice of a regulated profession, and affixing of stamps and seals that could be mistaken for the seals of a foreign State. Accordingly, he had been sentenced on 29 February 2016 to 3 months’ imprisonment, a judgment that was confirmed on appeal on 4 July 2016. 4.10 The complainant had also drafted several complaints in which he asserted that he was no longer subject to prosecution. He had attached to those complaints an illegible handwritten statement by the South Cairo Prosecution Office, which, he asserted, proved the validity of his claims. All necessary measures were taken by the Moroccan authorities to ascertain the veracity of the complainant’s claims. However, the information obtained from the Egyptian authorities showed and confirmed that the complainant was still the subject of an extradition request. Lastly, it should be noted that the complainant has continued his multiple attempts to commit forgery and use forged documents, whether in Egypt or in Morocco. 4.11 With regard to the merits, the State party concludes that the complaint should be rejected as unfounded, in particular on the grounds that the complainant benefited from all legal and judicial guarantees, that the extradition request by Egypt was not politically motivated and that the complainant would not be in danger of being subjected to torture if he were to be extradited. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 10 April 2018, the complainant said that he was being held in Tiflet 2 prison, having been transferred there some time before, pending his extradition to Egypt. 5.2 With regard to the Committee’s request for interim measures whereby the State party would not extradite the complainant while his complaint was under consideration, he indicated that the Government of Morocco had agreed to this request, in conformity with its international obligations. 5.3 Concerning the specific facts, the complainant claims that the State party does not challenge the version presented by the complainant and does not respond to any of his claims regarding the real reasons for his arrest and the request for his extradition. The State party merely presents the complainant as a common criminal, who has been given several prison sentences in Egypt for forgery of documents and who, in particular, was sentenced to life imprisonment on 28 August 2013. Contrary to the assertions of the State party, both the complainant at the time of his appearance before the Crown Prosecutor and his lawyer during the hearing before the Court of Cassation drew the attention of the judicial authorities to the complainant’s personal, present and serious risk of being subjected to torture if extradited, bearing in mind the current climate of widespread repression in Egypt. 5.4 The State party contests the admissibility of the complaint submitted by the complainant on the grounds that he has not exhausted all domestic remedies. In support of its assertion, the State party, while specifying that the judgment of the Court of Cassation is not subject to any ordinary appeal, claims that, according to articles 563 and 564 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an application for revocation may be filed against that judgment. In that regard, the complainant asserts that an application for revocation is possible in Moroccan domestic law only in certain exceptional situations established by article 563 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and must meet strict conditions, which have, moreover, been listed by the State party. In the present case, the complainant would not be able to invoke any of the situations provided for in article 563 to file such an application, which is, in any case, an extraordinary remedy. GE.19-22535 5