CAT/C/31/D/228/2003
Page 3
“BFP”) in 1991, an allegedly illegal political party, and in 1994 started actively
working for the party, including by organizing, and participating in, meetings and
demonstrations. In 1997, upon release on bail three days after being arrested for
illegal possession of weapons, he claimed to have gone into hiding for two years. As
the political situation worsened, he paid a smuggler to arrange departure from
Bangladesh.
2.2
On 29 September 1999, the Immigration Board held a second interview with
the complainant. He stated that from 1994 to 1997 he was joint secretary of the party
in the Dhaka city party district. He claimed Government members harass and abuse
party members, and that he too, as a known party figure, suffered harassment. He
claimed to have been falsely accused of murder, possession of weapons and taking
bribes in 1997. While he was under arrest, he claimed to have been tortured with kicks
and truncheons, and he adds that he continues to suffer from a back injury as a result.
The party arranged for his release on bail, whereupon he went into hiding outside
Dhaka. He allegedly was unaware whether he had been convicted of the offences of
which he had been accused. By subsequent written submissions and seeking to clarify
“misunderstandings”, the complainant’s counsel observed that the party was legal but
due to Government impediments of its activities, its activities were “underground”.
Counsel stated that the bribe charges were in fact charges to the effect that the
complainant had unlawfully extorted money, charges which had been brought by
police upon pressure from the party then in Government, the Awami League.
2.3
On 8 October 1999, the Immigration Board denied his application. The Board
established a variety of credibility problems related to documentation, and that he had
not established his identity. On the substance of the claim, it found that the BFP was
legal in Bangladesh, and that the complainant had not engaged in any impermissible
political activity. While aware of some politically-motivated charges, the Board
considered that the criminal justice system in Bangladesh provided sufficient
guarantees for fair trial in respect of any criminal charges. The Board observed that
the complainant had been released after 3 days in custody, had not been able to
provide any documentary evidence supporting his allegations of charges against him
and had provided very vague information as to any legal proceedings after his release.
It thus concluded that the complainant had not shown reason to believe he was at risk
of punishment for political reasons.
2.4
The complainant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board, submitting what he
claimed were copies of four court documents sent by his Bangladeshi lawyer, and a
statement by the latter dated 16 October 1999. According to the statement, a trial in
absentia still proceeded against the complainant, in which the statement’s author had
been appointed “lawyer of state defendant”. The statement also argued that the
political situation in Bangladesh was critical, that the police were seeking to arrest the
complainant, and that Awami League members were seeking to kill him. The
complainant submitted a document, dated 14 October 1999, which was described as a
BFP certificate from the “Office Secretary” of the party’s Central Executive
Committee, stating that the complainant had been arrested and subjected to torture for
three days, that his life was at risk and that he “may be killed by Govt. thugs if [he]
returns home”.