CAT/C/68/D/817/2017
1.2
The complaint included a request to the Committee for interim measures. On 28
March 2017, the Committee, pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, decided to act
on the request for the taking of interim measures and requested the State party to ease the
complainant’s conditions of detention and to safeguard his rights while in detention, so as
to avoid any irreversible damage while his complaint was being considered.
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant was arrested and taken into custody on 1 April 2008 under an
arrest warrant issued in connection with an extradition request from Morocco for so-called
“terrorist” offences. At the time of the extradition request from Morocco, two investigations
were being conducted by Spain for the offence of belonging to a terrorist group. These two
procedures ended with decisions to dismiss the case.
2.2
The complainant consistently denied any involvement in criminal acts and
challenged his extradition, in particular on the grounds that he was at risk of being
subjected to torture and ill-treatment, to an unfair trial and to inhuman conditions of
detention in Morocco. However, the Spanish Council of Ministers approved the
complainant’s extradition to Morocco on 19 November 2010.
2.3
On 25 November 2010, the complainant submitted a request for interim measures to
the Human Rights Committee with a view to preventing the extradition. On 26 November
2010, the Human Rights Committee requested Spain not to extradite the complainant to
Morocco.2 Spain nevertheless surrendered the complainant to the Moroccan authorities on
14 December 2010.
2.4
During his long period of police custody in Morocco, the complainant was brutally
tortured: injections, rapes, beatings, humiliation, threats, etc. As a consequence of these
abuses, he signed a previously written confession in Arabic, a language he does not know
well.
2.5
On 24 December 2010, the complainant was brought before the investigating judge,
who neither took cognizance of the complainant’s multiple injuries nor requested that an
expert medical examination be carried out. Yet according to Mr. Lahcen Dadsi, the
complainant’s Moroccan counsel at the time, the signs of abuse were patently obvious.
2.6
On 22 April 2011, the complainant’s case was referred to the Criminal Division of
the Rabat Court of Appeal to be heard as a terrorism case in Salé. The Moroccan case file
consists essentially of statements made by the complainant under torture.
2.7
In order to be acknowledged as a victim of acts of torture committed during his
police custody, the complainant filed a criminal complaint in early May 2011. This
complaint was dismissed. The complainant also submitted an application for the institution
of criminal indemnification proceedings before an investigating judge, but this procedure
was not duly conducted by the judge. Moreover, throughout the criminal proceedings
against him, the complainant raised this obstacle to prosecution and requested that an
independent and impartial investigation be conducted.
2.8
On 1 October 2012, the Criminal Division of the Rabat Court of Appeal sentenced
the complainant to 12 years’ imprisonment. 3 The complainant filed an application for
review of this judgment but, to date, this procedure has not resulted in any decision. 4 The
complainant has thus been in pretrial detention for nine years, as the judgment of conviction
is not yet final.
2
3
4
2
Aarrass v. Spain (CCPR/C/111/D/2008/2010), para. 1.2. In its decision, the Committee found that the
author’s extradition to Morocco constituted a violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (para. 11).
The complainant had been sentenced at first instance to 15 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the
sentence was reduced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
The file does not contain any additional information indicating whether the Court of Cassation has
ruled on the application for review.
GE.20-00011