argues that he has indeed no chance to be granted refugee status in Sweden
because the situation in Bangladesh has not changed since the decision of 19
March 1997 of the Aliens Appeal Board and the State party's immigration
authorities would be in the same situation as they were originally. Neither
has he any chance to obtain a residence permit on humanitarian grounds for
the same reasons. Rather, he would be blamed for having hidden himself
and for not having complied with the original decision of 19 March 1997.
5.3 The petitioner considers that since the State party has not granted him
refugee status despite the existence of documents proving that he has been
tortured in the past, the only possibility for avoiding a risk of torture in
Bangladesh is a consideration of his case by the Committee.
Additional comments by State party
6.1 In a submission of 6 April 2001, the State party reiterates that since the
original decision of 19 March 1997 was no longer enforceable, the petitioner
could make a new application for residence permit, which, as of the date of
the submission, has not yet been done. Moreover, according to the State
party's legislation, the Swedish Migration Board may also take a decision,
appealable before the Aliens Appeal Board, even if the petitioner does not
make such a new application. Such a decision had also not been taken at the
time of the submission.
6.2 The State party reiterates that the communication should be declared
inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this regard, the
State party considers, that contrary to the petitioner's suggestion, such a new
application would be effective to the extent that the Swedish Migration
Board would have to take into account new circumstances as well as the one
presented before. The petitioner would thus legally be in the same position
as when he made is original application. Among the grounds on which he
could base his new application are the risks of being subjected to torture if is
returned to his native country, humanitarian grounds, his state of health, and
the links he has established with the Swedish society. In this respect, the
State party notes that the petitioner has been staying in Sweden for more
than five years and, according to available information, would have married
a Swedish citizen in 1996.
6.3 Finally, the State party underlines that a direct enforcement of the
Swedish Migration Board, without allowing reconsideration on appeal, is
possible only in cases where it is obvious that there are no grounds for
granting a residence permit. Moreover, if the petitioner has resided in
Sweden for more that three months after his first application, such a direct
enforcement, which is also appealable to the Alien Appeal Board, could
only take place in the presence of exceptional grounds, such as if the