CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 counsel was present at all stages, from the submission of the defence plea to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court to the filing of an appeal for review of the decision to approve the extradition request issued on 10 March 2010. It notes that article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that extradition requests shall be refused if the Moroccan authorities have substantial grounds to believe that the extradition request for an ordinary offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons. 6.3 It also notes that the complainant’s extradition request was accompanied by diplomatic assurances not to subject him to torture or to assaults on his human dignity following his extradition to the Russian Federation by the State party. It submits that this is a conventional and familiar measure in the context of extradition of offenders, especially in the absence of an extradition treaty, and that cannot under any circumstances be interpreted as evidence of the existence of torture in the requesting State. The State party also notes that the Russian Federation is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and is therefore bound to respect its provisions. Additional submission by the complainant 7.1 On 9 May 2011, the complainant submitted further information and requested the Committee to reiterate the interim measures. The complainant noted that he continued to be detained at the Zaki civil prison in Salé, near Rabat, notwithstanding the fact that the maximum period of detention pending extradition had expired. His requests for release had been dismissed. Over the previous few months, the State party had increased security measures within the detention facility, restricting drastically his access to telephone calls, which severed his contacts to counsel. 7.2 At the end of April, the complainant was visited by an official of the Ministry of Justice, who asked him to sign some documents in Arabic and French. The complainant could not read the documents and refused to sign them. The official informed him that he was going to be extradited by the end of the month of May. 8. On 15 May 2011, counsel submitted that the complainant had been forcibly returned to the Russian Federation on 14 May 2011, after being unexpectedly released from prison at 6 p.m. Counsel submits that according to the media, the complainant was extradited to the Russian Federation on a flight that left at 11.15 p.m. Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence, counsel submits that compliance with provisional interim measures are essential in order to protect the complainant from irreparable harm and that by voluntarily accepting the competence of the Committee under article 22, the State party undertook to cooperate in good faith in applying the procedure. 14 Additional submission by the State party 9.1 On 10 June 2011, the State party submitted further observations and confirmed that the complainant has been handed over to the authorities of his country on 14 May 2011, pursuant to an extradition order signed by the relevant authorities in Morocco. 9.2 The State party notes that the complainant had been held in Salé prison since 17 January 2010 in connection with the extradition procedures. It states that the Committee against Torture did not inform the State party’s authorities about the decision taken on the 14 10 See communication No. 110/1998, Núñez Chipana v. Venezuela, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, para. 8; and T.P.S. v. Canada (footnote 11 above), para. 15.6.