CAT/C/37/D/259/2004
page 4
guilty and that he would do best to leave the country. A second lawyer, appointed by his brother
and the leader of the JP, also expressed the view that it would be preferable for the complainant
not to return to Bangladesh before the conclusion of the judicial proceedings.
2.6
On 13 September 2000, the complainant left Bangladesh and arrived in Switzerland
on 21 September 2000. On the very day of his arrival he lodged an application for asylum. By a
decision of 23 October 2002, the Federal Office for Refugees (ODR) - currently the Federal
Office for Migration (ODM) - rejected the application and ordered him to be deported from
Switzerland. On 4 August 2004, the Asylum Review Board (CRA) rejected the complainant’s
appeal, thereby confirming the ODR’s decision to deport him.
2.7
The complainant maintains that the CRA essentially bases its decision of 4 August 2004
on the lack of credibility of the alleged events, since they have not been confirmed by the
investigations conducted by the Swiss Embassy in Bangladesh. He rejects this reasoning, stating
that many pieces of documentary evidence submitted have been declared authentic by a notary,
that they are very detailed and that they uphold his account in all respects. He expresses surprise
at the lack of detail in the inquiry by the Swiss Embassy, and at the lack of explanation
concerning the procedure followed and the sources questioned, and concludes that the result is
incomplete. He also notes that the CRA considered as contradictory the fact that he should have
submitted attestations by two lawyers, whereas he had only mentioned one, and explains that,
when he submitted his application for asylum in Switzerland, he had simply not been aware that
his brother had appointed a second lawyer to represent him and that he had convinced the first
lawyer to continue to represent him. He considers that this fact in no way detracts from the
credibility of his allegations. As to the CRA’s statement that the complainant and his group were
not attacked by an AL group while returning from the demonstration on 10 June, but that the
two groups set on each other, the complainant states that it was difficult, once the fighting had
started, to say who had attacked whom and which group had had to defend itself; however, that
too in no way detracted from the credibility of his account.
2.8
The complainant notes that the CRA considered that it is impossible for JP members to
still be persecuted, given the fact that the JP is now represented in the Government and that, if
they were being persecuted, the higher courts would have the necessary independence to punish
such persecution. He rejects this argument, stating that, even though they are represented in the
Government, JP members can be persecuted since they still constitute a political minority. He
adds that the two criminal proceedings initiated against him are very probably linked to his
political activities. In reply to the CRA’s argument that even if the events had taken place in the
manner described by the complainant, he should not have left the country but should have sought
assistance from the Bangladesh authorities, he states that he tried to lodge a complaint but the
policemen in question ignored him. Lastly, he claims that, even if the higher courts are
independent in Bangladesh, as stated by the CRA, he would still have to spend several years in
prison, with a high risk of being tortured, before gaining access to the higher courts.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant asserts that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be
subjected to torture if he was returned to Bangladesh and that his expulsion to that country would
constitute a violation by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention.