CAT/C/25/D/122/1998
page 4
the complaints are legitimate and therefore in no way reflect political motivation on the part of
the State. The State party also points out that the Special Powers Act, which allows for
unlimited detention without trial, is not applicable in the author’s case and that there is therefore
little likelihood that the author will be imprisoned for an indefinite time.
4.6
With regard to the author’s allegations that the courts and tribunals of Bangladesh are
corrupt and controlled by the Government, the State party considers that, while that may be the
case for lower courts, higher courts are independent and impartial. There is therefore no
evidence that the author would not be granted the benefit of an impartial and fair trial.
4.7
According to the State party, neither the risk of being tried by a Bangladeshi court nor the
fact that he might be imprisoned, and could therefore be subject to ill-treatment, are reasons to
prevent the author’s expulsion on the basis of article 3 of the Convention.
Author’s comments
5.1
The author comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the
communication in a letter dated 10 August 1999.
5.2
The author points out that the State party recognizes that, in Bangladesh, extremists from
certain parties lodge complaints against opponents for purely political reasons and that certain
lower courts are corrupt and not independent. The State party therefore does not dispute the fact
that the author would probably be imprisoned on arrival in Bangladesh, that he risks being
ill-treated and tortured while being held, that he would probably be convicted by a lower court
and that he would have to wait for a higher court to consider his case to obtain what might be a
fair trial.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
6.1
Before considering any of the allegations in a communication, the Committee against
Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the
Convention. It has ascertained, as it is required to do in accordance with 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. It also notes that all
domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party has not contested the
admissibility of the communication. It therefore considers that the communication is admissible.
As both the State party and the author have provided observations on the merits of the
communication, the Committee proceeds with the consideration of those merits.
6.2
The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the author to Bangladesh
would violate the obligation of the State party under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or
return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would
be in danger of being subjected to torture.
6.3
The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, whether there are
substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture
upon return to Bangladesh. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all