CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.18 By making a determination in the existence of a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture for the complainant, the Committee expresses no opinion as to the veracity of the criminal accusations against him. 15.5 The Committee recalls that the prohibition against torture is absolute and nonderogable and that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked by a State Party to justify acts of torture.19 The Committee notes the complainant’s arguments that, in the light of the death or disappearance of his three business partners and pursuant to the assessment by UNHCR in Morocco, he runs a personal risk of torture or even death in the Russian Federation. It also notes the State party’s statement that its authorities found no evidence that the complainant would be subject to torture if extradited to the Russian Federation and that the extradition request was accompanied by diplomatic assurances by the Russian Federation not to subject him to torture or assaults on his human dignity. 15.6 The Committee must take into account the actual human rights situation in the Russian Federation and recalls its concluding observations on the State party’s fourth periodic report (CAT/C/RUS/CO/4, para. 9 and 12), according to which acts of torture, and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment continue to be committed by law enforcement personnel, in particular in view of obtaining confessions, as well as the insufficient level of independence of the Procuracy and its failure to initiate and conduct prompt, impartial and effective investigations into allegations of torture or ill-treatment. Nevertheless, additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee observes that the complainant’s three close business partners were either found dead or disappeared, two of them while in custody of the authorities of the Russian Federation, after having reported the facts of a criminal plot to the Russian authorities. The Committee also observes that the complainant himself received death threats from organized crime groups, following which he decided to leave the country. In the light of all the above, the Committee concludes that the complainant has sufficiently demonstrated his foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture upon return to the Russian Federation. It is the Committee’s opinion that the procurement of diplomatic assurances, in the circumstances of the instant case, was insufficient to protect the complainant against this manifest risk, also in the light of their general and non-specific nature and the fact they did not establish a follow-up mechanism. It follows therefore that the State party’s extradition of the complainant was in breach of article 3 of the Convention. 16. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, decides that the facts before it constitute breaches by the State party of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. 17. In conformity with rule 118 (former rule 112), paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to provide redress for the complainant, including compensation and establishing an effective follow-up mechanism to ensure that the complainant is not subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The Committee takes note of the fact that the authorities of the Russian Federation have undertaken to allow the Committee to visit the complainant in prison and to speak to him alone and in private, in accordance 18 19 14 See, inter alia, communications No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005; No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 2005; and No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010. See Committee against Torture general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/63/44), annex VI, para. 5.