CAT/C/34/D/220/2002 Page 5 believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In support of his claim, he refers to his involvement in the BFP, the persecution of his family, the medical reports concluding that he had previously been subjected to torture, his unjustifiable conviction for murder and anti-State activities, and the fact that there is said to be a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights in Bangladesh. 3.2 As to his involvement in the BFP, he states that many of the leaders of this party were convicted of the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in 1975 and have been sentenced to death. He claims that because of the party members support for these imprisoned leaders, the party members themselves have been stigmatized and are personally at risk of persecution by the police even under the BNP regime. 3.3 It is also claimed that his forced expulsion would, in itself, constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention, in view of his fragile psychiatric condition and severe post traumatic stress syndrome, resulting from the persecution, torture and rape to which the complainant and his family have been subjected. The State party’s submission on admissibility and merits: 4.1 On 10 April 2003, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It confirms that the complainant has exhausted domestic remedies but maintains, that his claims have not been substantiated for purposes of admissibility, that he has not shown that there is a foreseeable real and personal risk of being subjected to torture and that the claim of a violation of article 16, in view of his psychiatric condition, is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.2 The State party invokes to the Committee’s general comment on article 3, which spells out that a State party’s obligation to refrain from returning a person to another State is only applicable if the person is in danger of being subjected to torture, as defined in article 1. There is no reference to “other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” in article 3, as there is in article 16. Nor does article 16 contain a reference to article 3 as it does to articles 10-13. According to the State party, the purpose of article 16 is to protect those deprived of their liberty or who are otherwise under the factual power or control of the person responsible for the treatment or punishment. 4.3 The State party submits that although the general human rights situation in Bangladesh is “problematic”, it has improved when seen from a long perspective. Bangladesh has a parliamentary democracy since 1991 and following its introduction no systematic oppression of dissenters has been reported. However, it notes that violence is a pervasive feature of politics and the police reportedly use torture, beatings and other forms of abuse while interrogating suspects. The police are said to be reluctant to pursue investigations against people affiliated to the ruling party and the government frequently uses the police for political purposes. Although the Constitution establishes Islam as the State religion, it also contains the right to practise the religion of one’s choice. The government generally respects this right but religious minorities are disadvantaged in practice in certain areas, including access to government jobs and political office.