CAT/C/59/D/610/2014
country before the Bangladesh Nationalist Party helped him escape to Sweden. The
complainant also submits that a law enforcement agency has been searching for him in
order to arrest and torture him, and that its officers have interrogated his father on many
occasions.
2.2
On 28 August 2012, the complainant informed the Committee that the State party
refused to issue a work permit to him, although his deportation was stayed after the interim
measures request had been granted. The complainant submits a statement dated 21 July
2014 from his lawyer in Bangladesh pointing to a court verdict of 24 November 2005
finding the complainant guilty of torture and rape and indicating that the complainant had
left Bangladesh because he lacked protection owing to his political convictions. The
complainant also submits a statement dated 13 August 2014 by the Chair of the National
Human Rights Commission confirming the political persecution of the complainant in
Bangladesh and the need for international protection.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that, by not granting him international protection and by
returning him to Bangladesh, which would put him at risk of torture, kidnapping and death
at the hands of the Awami League and the above-mentioned law enforcement agency, the
State party would violate article 3 of the Convention.
State party’s observations
4.1
By a note verbale dated 8 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations
on admissibility and the merits of the complaint and drew the Committee’s attention to the
fact that the decision to expel the complainant would become statute barred on 14 February
2017.
4.2
On the facts as presented by the complainant, the State party clarifies that the
complainant applied for asylum on 26 February 2012, the day he claims to have arrived in
Sweden. The Swedish Migration Board rejected his application and decided, on 11 May
2012, to expel him to Bangladesh. The Migration Court rejected the appeal on 4 January
2013. On 14 February 2013, the Migration Court of Appeals refused to grant a leave to
appeal and thus the decision to expel the complainant became final and non-appealable.
The complainant subsequently claimed before the Swedish Migration Board that there were
impediments to enforcing the decision to expel him and requested a re-examination of his
case. The Swedish Migration Board rejected his request on 5 June 2014. The Migration
Court rejected his appeal on 23 June 2014.
4.3
On the communication’s admissibility, the State party claims that the complainant
has failed to substantiate to the minimum level necessary his claim that, if returned to
Bangladesh, he would be treated in a manner amounting to a breach of article 3 of the
Convention. According to the State party, the communication is manifestly unfounded and
inadmissible.
4.4
On the communication’s merits, the State party submits that the general human
rights situation in Bangladesh does not in itself suffice to establish that a return of the
complainant would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 1 The State party goes on
1
2
The State party refers to the following reports: Sweden, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Mänskliga
rättigheteri Bangladesh 2013, available in Swedish only from
www.manskligarattigheter.se/DownloadCountryReport/Get/?f=DM5%2fAsien+och+Oceanien%2fBa
ngladesh%2c+MR-rapport+2013.pdf; Odhikar, Bangladesh Human Rights Report 2013, available
from www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=publisher&docid
=5358cb964&skip=0&publisher=IFHR&querysi=bangladesh%20human%20rights%20report&search