CAT/C/52/D/525/2012 6.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee must ascertain that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of those remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, or that it is unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. 6.3 The Committee notes that, in the State party’s view, the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. The suspensive effect of the application filed by the complainant on 23 July 2012 for revocation of the favourable opinion issued on 25 April 2012 by the Court of Cassation is disputed by the two parties. The Committee notes that, as stated by the complainant, the extradition order was signed by the Head of Government on 14 September 2012 while the application was in progress. The Court’s decision to reject the application was handed down on 25 November 2012. Given the silence of Moroccan legislation on this matter and the fact that the State party has failed to provide any specific example of jurisprudence clarifying the suspensive nature of the application, the Committee is unable to conclude that the application for revocation prevented the complainant from submitting to the Committee a complaint that was, at most, premature. 6.4 With regard to the lack of remedies against the extradition order reported by the State party, the Committee notes that the parties’ views differ on the exact nature of the related decree and therefore the availability of remedies against it. The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the extradition order is not an administrative act but simply an act implementing a court decision, which does not establish rights and is therefore not subject to appeal. On the other hand, the State party explains that it is an administrative act, against which an application for setting aside on grounds of abuse of power can be filed with the administrative chamber of the Court of Cassation, in accordance with the provisions of the administrative law to which the State party refers. 18 6.5 The Committee notes that, pursuant to the State party’s legislation, an application for setting aside the extradition order on grounds of abuse of power does indeed seem possible. Nevertheless, it notes that, in his comments of 31 December 2013, the complainant denies having been officially notified of the decree ordering his extradition, signed on 14 September 2012, although his counsel had previously mentioned that the complainant had received a copy of the decree during the month of October 2012. The Committee further notes that the State party has not proved that the complainant was officially notified of the extradition order, which would have given him a formal opportunity to appeal within the two-month deadline.19 The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and recalls that, pursuant to the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant was only required to use remedies that were directly related to the risk of being subjected to torture in Algeria. 20 The Committee notes that the State party has not specified the exact scope of the application to set aside the extradition order on grounds of abuse of power, or how it might influence the complainant’s extradition to Algeria, as the State party has not indicated whether the application has suspensive effect. On the other hand, regarding the alleged violation of article 15 of the Convention by the State party, the Committee notes that the complainant did not raise the complaint before the competent authorities, in particular the Court of Cassation,21 because on that occasion, the complainant 18 19 20 21 8 Dahir No. 1.91-225 of 10 September 1993, enacting Act No. 41-90 on the creation of administrative courts, art. 9. Neither the complainant nor the State party has submitted a copy of the extradition order. See communication No. 170/2000, A.R. v. Sweden, para. 7.1, decision dated 23 November 2001, and communication No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, para. 14.3, decision dated 25 November 2011. See the complainant’s defence statement before the Court of Cassation, dated 10 April 2012. GE.14-05418