CCPR/C/122/D/2642/2015 motives for his conflicts with the Jamaat-e-Islami, the way in which the court documents were surrendered to his cousin, the name of his attorney, the newspaper articles on the charges against him and the time of his departure. 4.8 The State party refers to each of the inconsistencies described above, reiterating the findings of the Board.14 It emphasizes, with respect to the alleged charges against the author regarding the killing of a professor, that the author first mentioned that the killing had occurred on 21 August, about one year before he left Bangladesh, which in the State party’s view corresponds to the period between December 2006 and July 2007. After being informed that the court documents submitted by him indicated that the killing of the professor had taken place in 2004, he changed his version of the facts, affirming that he had been charged with the killing of a professor that had occurred in 2004. The State party also highlights that, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ verification of the court documents produced by the author during his asylum process, he was not a party in the criminal cases relating to the crimes of which he alleged to have been accused.15 The State party concludes that, as decided by the Board, it is not possible to attach any evidential weight to such documents. 4.9 The State party further states that the author had not rendered probable that he would be considered as a suspect of the crimes based on the false charges against him or that he would be considered as a person of interest by the authorities of Bangladesh, given that he is not a high-profile member of the Jamaat-e-Islami, but only a sympathizer. The Board did not find any specific reason to assume that the author would risk abuse by the Jamaat-eIslami upon return. Moreover, the activities performed by the author for the Jamaat-eIslami date back many years. This is confirmed by background information, including a 2015 report by the British Home Office, according to which: Membership or support of groups opposed to the current government does not of itself give rise to a well founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh. Decision makers must assess claims made on the basis of the person’s actual or perceived involvement in political opposition to the current government on the facts of the case, taking account of the nature of the applicant’s claimed political activity or profile; and the extent to which they may have come to the adverse attention of the authorities and the reasons for that; the level and nature of actual or perceived political involvement as well as their previous experiences in Bangladesh. 16 4.10 The State party reiterates that the author failed to demonstrate that he would face a real risk of a breach of article 9 of the Covenant in case of deportation to Bangladesh. 4.11 Finally, the State party recalls that important weight should be given to findings of domestic authorities, and that it is generally for State organs to assess the facts and evidence of each case, unless it can be established that such assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.17 The author has failed to explain whether there were any irregularities in the decision-making process. 18 The State party also notes that, in his communication to the Committee, the author has failed to provide new, specific details about his situation. This reflects that he merely disagrees with domestic decisions, and that he is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body. 14 15 16 17 18 See para. 2.9. See para. 2.10. British Home Office, Country Information and Guidance — Bangladesh: Opposition to the Government (February 2015). The State party also refers to United States Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices — Bangladesh (27 February 2014) which states that, “while political affiliation was sometimes a factor in the arrest and prosecution of members of the opposition parties, the government did not prosecute individuals solely for political reasons”. The State party refers to P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.3; K v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), paras. 7.4–7.5; and N. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014), para. 6.6. The State party refers to X and X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 7.5 and Z v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014), para. 7.4. 7