|
The Committee
against Torture, established under Article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 3 May 2005,
Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 221/2002, submitted to
the Committee against Torture by Mr. M.M.K. under article 22 of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,
Having taken into account all information made available to it by the
complainant, his counsel and the State party,
Adopts the following:
Decision Under Article 22, Paragraph 7, of the Convention:
1.1 The complainant is Mr. M.M.K., a Bangladeshi citizen, currently residing
in Sweden where he has requested asylum. He claims that his removal to
Bangladesh The Convention entered into force for Bangladesh on 4 November
1998, but the State party has not made a declaration under article 22 of the
Convention. [FN1] in the event of the rejection of his refugee claim would
constitute a violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention by Sweden The
Convention entered into force for Sweden on 26 June 1987, and the State
party has accepted the Committee's competence under article 22 of the
Convention.. [FN2] He is represented by counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The Convention entered into force for Bangladesh on 4 November 1998,
but the State party has not made a declaration under article 22 of the
Convention.
[FN2] The Convention entered into force for Sweden on 26 June 1987, and the
State party has accepted the Committee's competence under article 22 of the
Convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the
Committee transmitted the complaint to the State party on 21 November 2002.
Pursuant to rule 108, paragraph 1 of the Committee's revised rules of
procedures, the State party was requested to refrain from expelling the
complainant to Bangladesh pending the consideration of his case by the
Committee. On 8 January 2002, the State party informed the Committee that it
had decided to stay the enforcement of the decision to expel the complainant
to Bangladesh until further notice.
1.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the
Committee transmitted the complaint to the State party on 21 November 2002.
Pursuant to rule 108, paragraph 1 of the Committee's revised rules of
procedures, the State party was requested to refrain from expelling the
complainant to Bangladesh pending the consideration of his case by the
Committee. On 8 January 2002, the State party informed the Committee that it
had decided to stay the enforcement of the decision to expel the complainant
to Bangladesh until further notice.
The Facts as Submitted by the Complainant:
2.1 In 1993, while living in Bangladesh, the complainant was appointed as
the local welfare secretary of the Jatiya Party in Mymensingh. He held that
position until coming to Sweden in 2002. His duties included informing
Bangladeshi citizens about their rights and about the widespread corruption
in the country. In 1995, the complainant received kidnapping and death
threats by followers of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ("BNP") and
thereafter from 1999 to 2002, by followers of the Awami League.
2.2 Between 1993 and 1996, the complainant studied in India and came back to
Bangladesh during holidays, and whenever his duties towards the Jatiya Party
demanded it. For almost a year during 1995 to 1996, he was not in Bangladesh
at all out of fear of being kidnapped and because of death threats.
2.3 In 1995, while on holidays in Bangladesh, the complainant was kidnapped
by followers of the BNP and held for four days. During this time he was
allegedly severely maltreated and his arms and hands were slashed with
knives. The purpose was to make him stop his political activities and his
fight against corruption. After four days he was left in the street, and
passers-by brought him to hospital. He reported this incident to the police
but was not able to name any of his kidnappers as he was blindfolded during
the ill treatment. The police were unable to arrest anyone involved.
2.4 In June 1995, the complainant was falsely accused of murder in his home
town, Mymensingh. For this reason, and because the police was looking for
him he did not stay at home, but mostly in Dhaka. He continued to carry on
his political activities in other parts of the country.
2.5 In September/October 1999, the complainant was arrested while taking
part in a demonstration in Dhaka. He was accused of kidnapping. He states
that the accusation was false and that according to the police report the
Awami League was responsible for it. He was released on bail in
January/February 2000 after complaining of torture. Throughout his custody,
the complainant was subjected to torture, at least once a week for two or
three days at the time. He describes the torture as follows; his hair was
shaved and water was dropped on his head and poured through his nostrils, he
was subjected to electric shocks, and hit with clubs, truncheons and long
sticks. He was also electrocuted by being forced to urinate in hot water
into which electric cables were introduced. The purpose was to obtain a
confession and to stop him from being politically active. According to the
complainant's counsel in Bangladesh, the responsible authorities
acknowledged that he had been subjected to maltreatment but not to "more
severe forms of torture", and that sometimes a little force or torture was
necessary to obtain "the truth". The case against the complainant is still
pending.
2.6 After his release, the complainant was treated for some time in a
private clinic, for his mental and physical sequels of the torture. In
May/June 2000, and although the complainant had only regained about 70% of
his former capacity, he resumed his political activities.
2.7 In July 2000, the complainant was again arrested and falsely accused of
illegal possession of arms and drug dealing. He was refused bail on account
of the seriousness of the charges and remanded in custody for two and a half
months awaiting trial. He indicates that his father "arranged" for his case
pending not to be joined with the murder case. While on remand he was
subjected to mental torture; and forced to watch while others were tortured.
Upon release on bail in September 2000, he was again administered medical
treatment.
2.8 In February 2001, the complainant left Bangladesh, not because of an
isolated incident but because of everything that had happened to him since
1995 and because he feared being killed either by followers of the Awami
League or the BNP, and of being subjected to torture again. That the BNP and
its coalition partners won the elections in October 2001 did not allay his
fear.
2.9 On 14 February 2001, the complainant entered Sweden, and requested
asylum on the same day. Counsel requested a delay of the examination of the
case until 31 January 2002, to obtain documentary evidence of the
complainant's case from Bangladesh. The Migration Board rejected counsel's
request for such a delay.
2.10 While in Sweden, the complainant was informed that the police in
Bangladesh had been looking for him and that they had a warrant for his
arrest, as he had not appeared in court. He requested medical assistance in
Sweden at the clinic for asylum seekers in Fittja.
2.11 On 19 December 2001, the Migration Board denied his application. The
Board did not consider credible that the complainant had been persecuted by
Bangladeshi authorities, since he, although wanted for murder, had been able
to travel back and forth between Bangladesh and India. It also noted that
one page of the complainant's passport had been torn out, and that it was
not probable that he was released on bail given the serious charges against
him. In its conclusion, the Board also stated that it did not consider it
probable that the complainant had been subjected to torture, or that he had
a well-founded fear of being subjected to torture or corporal punishment.
2.12 The complainant appealed to the Aliens Appeal Board. The Board was
presented with documentary evidence from Bangladesh, including two medical
reports. A third medical report from the clinic for asylum seekers in Fittja,
Sweden, was also submitted by counsel. Counsel suggested that if the Board
had doubts about the authenticity of the documents, it should investigate
the matter through the Swedish Embassy in Dhaka. The Board did not initiate
such an investigation. Counsel requested the Board to consider another
medical investigation; this was not deemed necessary.
2.13 On 6 August 2002, the Aliens Appeal Board upheld the decision of the
Migration Board, arguing that it is easy to obtain false documents in
Bangladesh and therefore they had to be considered of low evidentiary value.
It concluded that the complainant's information about his political
activities and that he had been subjected to "torture" did not justify the
conclusion that he would risk political persecution or torture in Bangladesh
if returned there.
The Complaint:
3.1 The complainant argues that there are substantial grounds for believing
that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Bangladesh, and that
this would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by Sweden.
3.2 He claims that the execution of the deportation order would in itself
constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention, in view of his
fragile psychiatric condition and severe post-traumatic stress disorder,
resulting from the torture he was subjected to.
3.3 The complainant argues that his personal fear of torture has been
substantiated throughout the asylum hearings and medical reports. He argues
that the Aliens Appeal Board did not consider it necessary to have his
injuries investigated nor to check the authenticity of the documents,
including the medical reports, provided from Bangladesh. Further, he argues
that the Board did not question his information about what he was subjected
to or what happened to him in Bangladesh.
The State Party's Submission:
4.1 On 19 May 2003, the State party submitted its observations on the
admissibility and merits of the case. It submits that the claim under
article 3 should be declared inadmissible, since it lacks the minimum of
substantiation to make it compatible with provisions of the Convention.
4.2 As regards the complaint related to article 16, the State party submits
that it should be declared inadmissible, since this provision does not apply
in the present case. According to the Committee's General Comment on the
implementation of article 3, the obligation on a State party to refrain from
returning a person to another State is only applicable if the person is in
danger of being subjected to torture as defined in article 1 of the
Convention. Article 3 of the Convention does not contain a reference to
"other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" as
article 16, nor does article 16 contain a reference to article 3. For the
State party, the purpose of article 16 is to protect persons deprived of
their liberty or who are otherwise under the factual power or control of the
person responsible for the treatment or punishment, and that the complainant
is not a victim in that sense. In any event, the claim under article 16
lacks the minimum substantiation to make it compatible with provisions of
the Convention.
4.3 Alternatively, the state party submits that the complainant's claims are
unfounded.
4.4 Regarding the complainant's claim under article 3, the State party
acknowledges that the general human rights situation in Bangladesh is
problematic but contends that it has improved from a long-term perspective,
and that persecution for political reasons is rare at grass-roots level and
may under any circumstances be avoided by seeking refuge in another part of
the country.
4.5 While the jurisprudence in respect of article 3 requires that the
complainant faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in
the country to which he is returned, the Swedish authorities apply the same
kind of test as that under article 3 when considering an application for
asylum under the Aliens Act. The State party submits that the domestic
authorities are in a strong position to assess claims from Bangladeshi
asylum seekers, since Sweden received 1.427 such requests between 1990 and
2000, and residence permits were granted in 629 cases.
4.6 In relation to the complainant's allegation that he risks being
ill-treated by political opponents upon return to Bangladesh, the State
party submits that the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment by a
non-governmental entity or by private individuals, without the consent or
acquiescence of the government of the receiving country, falls outside the
scope of article 3 of the Convention.
4.7 As regards the complainant's claim that he risks being tortured by the
police, the State party notes that he was allegedly arrested and tortured by
police on instructions from the then ruling party, the Awami League, because
of his political activities for the Jatiya party, and that false accusations
from that party resulted in the criminal trial which is still pending
against him. However, in October 2001, the Awami League was replaced by a
government coalition consisting of the BNP and three smaller parties, among
them a fraction of the Jatiya party. Since the Awami League is currently in
opposition, the risk of being exposed to harassment by the authorities
instigated by that party should have been seriously reduced.
4.8 As regards the BNP supporters' alleged ill-treatment of the complainant
in 1995, the State party submits that there is nothing to indicate that the
Bangladeshi authorities had anything to do with it at all, or that the
complainant has anything to fear from the parties currenty in power.
4.9 The State party notes that the complainant has not submitted any
concrete evidence of his membership in and activities for the Jatiya party.
From what he told the Swedish immigration authorities, he did not hold a
leading position within the party. An eventual risk of harassment on account
of his political activities would therefore only be of local character, and
he could avoid harassment by moving within the country, as he did when he
was charged with murder in 1995.
4.10 The State party notes that the complainant only invoked one certificate
from Bangladesh and one certificate from the Fittja health centre in support
of his allegations of past torture. The certificate from Bangladesh is
undated and merely states that the complainant arrived to the clinic on 15
October 2000, after being subjected to physical torture, and was treated for
physical injuries and mental depression. However, during the interview with
the Migration Board, the complainant emphasised that when he was arrested in
July 2000 he was subjected to mental but not physical torture. The
certificate from Fittja does not include an assessment of whether the author
was tortured and does not mention physical injuries or post-traumatic stress
disorder.
4.11 The State party has engaged the Swedish Embassy in Dhaka to look into
the two ongoing criminal trials against the complainant, through a local
lawyer. He found that the complainant had been acquitted of the murder
charges on 29 August 2000, but that he is accused in another case pending
before the court. Accordingly, no murder case was pending against the
complainant when Swedish authorities examined his asylum application.
Notwithstanding reported shortcomings of the judicial system in Bangladesh,
the complainant cannot argue that he did not receive a fair trial in respect
of the murder charges against him, and may also be acquitted in the case of
kidnapping against him. In the case of kidnapping he benefits from legal
representation, and may appeal to a higher court. The State party recalls
that the higher courts in Bangladesh are reported to display a significant
degree of independence from the executive.
4.12 Should the circumstances be such that the complainant risks being
detained upon return to Bangladesh, either to be tried or to serve a prison
sentence, this does not justify the conclusion that he risks being subjected
to torture. The complainant has not shown how he would be in danger of such
politically motivated persecution as would render him particularly
vulnerable to torture during a possible period of detention.
4.13 As to the claim under article 16, the State party contests the
complainant's allegation that because of his "fragile psychiatric condition
and severe PTSD", a deportation of him would amount to a cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16, paragraph 1. The State
party refers to the Committee's jurisprudence in G.R.B v. Sweden, [FNa] and
S.V. et al v. Canada., [FNb] and the jurisprudence of the European Court of
Human Rights, and submits that only in very exceptional circumstances may a
removal per se constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Such
exceptional circumstances have not been presented in the complainant's case:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FNa] Communication No. 83/1997, Views adopted on 15 May 1998.
[FNb] Communication No. 49/1996, Views adopted on 15 May 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Firstly, because the complainant has presented scant medical evidence in
connection with his asylum application. Before the Migration Board, he did
not invoke any medical evidence at all. Before the Aliens Appeals Board, he
submitted a medical certificate from the Fittja health care centre, which
states that he is severely traumatised; it does not state that he suffers
from PTSD or that he contemplated suicide. In addition,the case file of the
immigration authorities reveals that the complainant, despite his health
problems, worked in a restaurant in Stockholm. The State party submits that
the fact that the complainant did not invoke any medical evidence until his
application was pending before the Aliens Appeals Board, may indicate that
his medical condition has deteriorated primarily as a consequence of the
Migration Board's decision to reject his asylum application.
(b) Secondly, there is no substantial basis for the complainant's fear of
returning to Bangladesh. He has family in Bangladesh to support him, and
medical care is available if needed, at least in a big city like Dhaka where
most of the family members live.
(c) Thirdly, the enforcement authorities in Sweden are obligated to
implement the deportation in a human and dignified manner which takes into
account the alien's health.
The Complainant's Comments:
5.1 In comments dated 28 July 2003, counsel submits that the complainant was
not aware that he had been acquitted in the case of murder until he received
the State party's submission. As the investigations undertaken by Sweden
revealed that there were in fact two court cases against the complainant in
Bangladesh, this shows that the documents were authentic.
5.2 Counsel reiterates that, the complainant has submitted credible evidence
to support his allegations of previous torture and charges against him in
Bangladesh.
5.3 In respect of the State party's reference to its experience with
Bangladeshi asylum seekers, counsel refers to a UNHCR report which reveal
that out of 245.586 applications from asylum seekers submitted in Sweden
between 1990-1999, only 1.300 were made by Bangladeshi citizens.
Furthermore, in respect of the State party's contention that the
complainant's risk of being maltreated by political opponents falls outside
the scope of article 3, it is submitted that the complainant does not claim
a risk of maltreatment by political opponents, but by Bangladeshi the
police.
5.4 In respect of the State party's contention that the maltreatment of the
complainant by supporters of the Awami League, should have ceased since the
Awami League is no longer in power, whereas a fraction of the Jatiya party
is part of the government coalition, counsel submits that false accusations
were also made against the complainant by BNP supporters. BNP supporters in
fact initiated the court case against him in 1995. The complainant was only
acquitted in August 2000, more than 5 years after the charges were filed. As
regards the other charges against him still pending, he continues to risk
detention and thereby to be subjected to torture by police.
5.5 Regarding the argument that the complainant presented insufficient
evidence to support his claims, counsel submits that in the proceedings
before the Aliens Appeals Board, he requested a medical forensic and
psychiatric investigation, but the Board did not consider this to be
necessary. Nevertheless, counsel requested the Kris- och Traumacentrum (KTC)
to perform such an investigation, but this institution could not do so in
the autumn of 2002.
5.6 As to the contention that the complainant stated before the Migration
Board that he had only been subjected to mental torture during his arrest in
July-October 2000, while the medical certificate from Bangladesh stated that
he suffered from both physical and medical injuries following the torture,
counsel recalls that it is not uncommon that victims of torture are unable
to remember exactly what happened to them in each and every instance.
5.7 Counsel submits that, as regards the change of government, those working
for the Freedom party [FNc] are still in opposition to the government, and
are subject to false accusations, detention and torture by police.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FNc] Apparently a misspelling; see paragraph 6.1 below, which was not
challenged to by counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Party's and Complainant's Additional Comments:
6.1 By note of 12 September 2003, the State party refers to counsel's
allegation concerning the supporters of the Freedom party, and assumes that
the reference to the Freedom party is an oversight and that the complainant
still claims that he was affiliated with the Jatiya party. It recalls that a
fraction of the Jatiya party is part of the present government in
Bangladesh.
6.2 It submits that while counsel indicates that the complainant is
currently an active member of the political opposition in Bangladesh, there
is nothing in the information to the Swedish immigration authorities to
indicate the same. As regards the case of kidnapping, this was according to
the complainant initiated by the Awami League. The State party considers
that the transfer of political power therefore has substantially reduced the
complainant's risk of being subjected to detention and torture. The State
party also suggests that the Bangladesh authorities do not take a great
interest in the complainant, since he could travel about the country for
several years doing political work, notwithstanding that he was charged with
murder.
6.3 In further submissions of 9 and 11 December 2003, counsel submits that
the complainant does not belong to the fraction of the Jatiya party which is
part of the current government in Bangladesh, the Naziur Rahmen fraction. He
alleges that this fraction constitutes one part of the problems to the
fraction the complainant belongs to, the Ershad fraction, in that it applies
political pressure to make members change from the Ershad fraction to the
Naziur Rahmen fraction. The complainant has described his political
activities in detail before the Migration Board and the Aliens Appeals
Board, and neither institution questioned his activities.
6.4 In respect of the State party's suggestion that the complainant is not
of interest to the Bangladeshi authorities since he could move about in the
country while being charged with murder, counsel submits that his movements
were limited, and that because Bangladesh did not have a centralized data
system, he was not apprehended by the police before 1999.
6.5 Counsel submits documentation to the effect that the author was examined
by doctors at the Centre for victims of torture and trauma in December 2003.
The psychiatrist concludes that it is beyond doubt that Mr. M.M.K. has been
tortured in the way he describes. He also concludes that the author is
suicidal. The forensic report lists a number of findings of scars and
injuries which are typical for victims of violence and support the author's
description of torture.
6.6 Counsel also submits a declaration by the Vice Chairman of the Jatiyo
Party Central Committee, confirming that the author has been an active
member of the party since 1991, and that he was subjected to government
harassment and persecution for his political belief.
6.7 By note of 23 April 2004, the State party submits that the new
documentation from counsel is lodged out of time and should not be
considered by the Committee. In the event that the Committee decides to
consider the additional documentation, the documentation was presented long
after the national authorities had determined his case and shortly before
the Committee is about to decide it. The fact that medical evidence is
obtained and invoked at such a late time is generally likely to diminish its
value. With regard to the pending court case against the author, the Embassy
engaged a lawyer who reported to the Embassy on 29 February 2004 that the
court of Bogra had not yet been able to complete the proceedings and deliver
a judgment in the case, since no witness had turned up to give evidence.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee:
Consideration of Admissibility
7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee
against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22
of the Convention. In this respect the Committee has ascertained, as it is
required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention that the
same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure
of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also notes that
the State party acknowledges that domestic remedies have been exhausted.
7.2 In respect of the State party's contention that the claim under article
3 should be declared inadmissible for lack of minimal substantiation, the
Committee observes that it has received detailed information about pending
court cases against the complainant, one of which could result in the
complainant's arrest and detention upon return to Bangladesh, and that the
complainant has described in detail his activities for a political party and
experience of torture. The Committee considers that this claim should be
examined on the merits.
7.3 To the extent that the complainant argues that the State party would be
in breach of article 16 by exposing him to possible ill-treatment, the
Committee observes that only in very exceptional circumstances may a removal
per se constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Such exceptional
circumstances have not been presented in the complainant's case.
Accordingly, the claim under article 16 is inadmissible ratione materiae, as
incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
7.4 With regard to the State party's contention that counsel's further
documentation was lodged out of time and should not be considered by the
Committee, the Committee notes that this documentation was not submitted in
response to a request for information from the Committee within a specific
deadline, as set out in Rule 109, paragraph 6 of the Rules of procedure, but
after a recent medical examination of the complainant and a recent
declaration by the Vice Chairman of the Jatiyo Party Central Committee.
While the Committee considers that the parties to the proceedings should
submit arguments and evidence within set deadlines, it considers that new
evidence of critical importance to the Committee's assessment of the
complaint may be submitted as soon as it is made available to either party.
7.5 The Committee notes that this new documentation was submitted 3 months
after it was made available to the complainant. However, it finds that in
the circumstances of the present case, where the State party rejected the
complainant's request for a medical examination, and where the medical
certificates are inconclusive on the issue of the complainant's experience
of torture, a new medical certificate must be admitted for the evaluation of
the complaint by the Commitee. The new documentation was transmitted to the
State party for comments, to ensure equality of arms, and the State party
has commented on it. The Committee therefore finds that it should consider
the new medical documentation made available to it. In the same context, it
also admits as evidence the declaration by the Vice Chairman of the Jatiyo
Party Central Committee.
7.6 The Committee accordingly declares the claim under article 3 admissible
and proceeds to its consideration on the merits.
Consideration of the Merits:
8.1 The Committee must decide whether the forced return of the complainant
to Bangladesh would violate the State party's obligation, under article 3,
paragraph 1 of the Convention, not to expel or return an individual to
another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he
would be in danger of being subjected to torture. It follows that, in
conformity with the Committee's jurisprudence, the existence of a consistent
pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country
does not as such constitute sufficient ground for determining whether the
particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his
return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the
individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of
a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that
a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture
in his or her specific circumstances.
8.2 The Committee takes note of the complainant's information about the
general human rights situation in Bangladesh, in particular recurrent
incidents of police violence against prisoners and political opponents. The
State party, while conceding the occurrence of police torture and violent
clashes between political opponents, nevertheless considers that the higher
levels of the judiciary display a significant degree of independence.
8.3 The Committee observes that the main reason the complainant fears to be
at personal risk of torture if returned to Bangladesh, is that he was
previously subjected to torture by the police, and that he risks detention
upon return to Bangladesh, because of criminal charges pending against him.
8.4 The Committee notes that the Swedish immigration authorities have
thoroughly evaluated the complainant's case, and considered whether the
complainant risked torture or persecution in Bangladesh; they concluded that
he was not at risk.
8.5 With regard to the complainant's allegations of experienced torture, the
Committee considers that while the other medical certificates submitted in
this case do not clearly support the complainant's version, the medical
report from Sweden submitted in March 2004, supports Mr. M.M.K.'s contention
that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment. The fact that the
medical examination took place several years after the alleged incidents of
torture and ill-treatment does, in the present case, not allay the
importance of this medical report. However, the Committee considers that
while it is probable that the author was subjected to torture, the question
is whether he risks torture upon return to Bangladesh at present.
8.6 In response to this question, the Committee notes the State party's
contention that since the Awami League is currently in political opposition,
the risk of being exposed to harassment on the part of the authorities
instigated by members of that party has diminished. The State party further
argues that the complainant does not have anything to fear from the
political parties now in power, since he is a member of one of the coalition
parties. While noting the complainant's explanation that he supports a
fraction of the Jatiya party which is opposed to that part of the party in
government, the Committee does not consider that this fact per se justifies
the conclusion that the complainant would be at risk of persecution and
torture at the hand of supporters of the government fraction of the Jatiya
party or the BNP.
8.7. Finally, with regard to the complainant's allegation that since he
risks detention in respect of the pending court charges against him, and
detention is inevitably followed by torture, the Committee concludes that
the existence of torture in detention as such does not justify a finding of
a violation of article 3, given that the complainant has not demonstrated
how he personally would be at risk of being tortured.
8.8 In light of the foregoing, the Committee finds that the complainant has
not established that he himself would face a foreseeable, real and personal
risk of being tortured within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.
9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the complainant's removal to
Bangladesh by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of
the Convention.
[Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the
original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as
part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]
|
|