CAT/C/25/D/122/1998
page 3
Merits of the complaint
3.1
The author states that Bangladesh is a country with gross, flagrant and mass human rights
violations, within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Given that a
complaint had been lodged against him, there is serious reason to believe that he risks being
subjected to torture should he be returned to Bangladesh. Torture and ill-treatment are
commonplace in Bangladesh, the prisons are overcrowded and prison sanitary conditions are
inhuman. The author claims that, in December 1997 alone, at least four people were killed while
remanded in custody.
3.2
The author also recalls that the vice-president of Yuba Dubal had been the target of
intimidation on the part of Awami League members more than once. He considers that the
charge of murder against him is part and parcel of the climate of oppression prevailing in his
country and that the aim is to eliminate him personally as an opponent. He also considers that, if
he had been arrested, he would probably be in prison and the victim of abusive treatment and
torture. Since the judiciary is controlled by those in power, it is unlikely he would be acquitted
and he therefore ran the risk of life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Observations by the State party on the admissibility and merits of the communication
4.1
The State party did not contest the admissibility of the communication and, in a letter
dated 18 June 1999, made observations on its merits.
4.2
The State party points out that there remains some doubt as to the author’s true identity.
Those doubts stem not only from the fact that the author’s name is spelled in two different ways
in the translation of the documents he produced, but also from the absence of the certificate that
the author undertook to provide. It is therefore difficult to be certain that the documents
submitted to the Swiss authorities refer to the author.
4.3
The State party also wishes to inform the Committee about the contradictions observed in
the course of the two hearings during the asylum procedure. At the first hearing, the author
stated that the person who had been killed was called Babu, but, at another hearing, he said that
the person was called Abul Kalama and that he knew of no other name for that person. The State
party nevertheless emphasizes that that contradiction alone is not a sufficient basis for
concluding that the communication is unfounded.
4.4
The State party considers, contrary to the author, that the Bangladeshi police took a
number of measures to prosecute the perpetrators of the attack on the author and his brother. In
addition, the author and his brother could have taken the matter to a higher court. Lastly, the
State party points out that, after the incident, the author continued to live at home, which would
seem to prove that he no longer stood in great fear of his political enemies.
4.5
Although it acknowledges the existence in Bangladesh of politically motivated
complaints (i.e. complaints that are not based on facts, but whose sole aim is to cause trouble for
a political adversary), the State party underlines that the administrative inquiries that follow on