CAT/C/68/D/826/2017 7.4 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 which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.29 It also recalls that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, who must present an arguable case, that is to say, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when complainants are in a situation where they cannot elaborate on their case, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based. 30 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. 31 7.5 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s argument that, in the event of extradition to Turkey, he faces a serious risk of torture because of his perceived membership of the Fethullah terrorist organization/Parallel State Structure. In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant is being investigated for membership of this movement, and that, according to reports on file, the use of torture and ill-treatment against persons with his profile is commonplace during their detention. Secondly, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the Court of Cassation has not implemented article 721 of the Criminal Procedure Code and did not ascertain whether the request for the complainant’s extradition was political in nature. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, Moroccan criminal law is in line with the Convention, since it establishes that no person may be extradited if he or she is likely to be subjected to persecution on grounds of their race, religion, political opinions or personal situation, or if they may be in danger for any such reasons. 7.6 The Committee must take into account the current human rights situation in Turkey, including the impact of the state of emergency (lifted in July 2018, but the restrictive measures were extended by the adoption of a series of legislative measures). The Committee notes that the successive extensions of the state of emergency in Turkey have led to serious human rights violations against hundreds of thousands of people, involving, in particular, arbitrary deprivation of the right to work and the right to freedom of movement, torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and infringements of the right to freedom of association and expression. 32 The Committee recalls in this regard its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Turkey (CAT/C/TUR/CO/4), in which it noted with concern, in paragraph 9, the significant disparity between the high number of allegations of torture reported by non-governmental organizations and the data provided by the State party in its periodic report (see paras. 273–276 and annexes 1 and 2), which suggested that not all allegations of torture had been investigated during the reporting period. In the same concluding observations, the Committee highlighted, in paragraph 19, its concern about recent amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gave the police greater powers to detain individuals without judicial oversight during police custody. In paragraph 33, the Committee expressed regret about the lack of complete information on suicides and other sudden deaths in detention facilities during the period under review. 7.7 The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the state of emergency declared in Turkey on 20 July 2016 increased the risk of persons accused of belonging to a terrorist group being subjected to torture while in detention. The Committee recognizes that the concluding observations in question were issued prior to the declaration of the state of emergency. However, it recalls that, following the attempted coup d’état of July 2016, it 29 30 31 32 8 Committee’s general comment No. 4, para. 11. Ibid., para. 38. 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.19-22197