CAT/C/34/D/220/2002 Page 9 5.3 The complainant reiterates that he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and for this reason will be arrested by the police. In addition, he states that as his case has attracted interest in the Swedish mass media, there is a risk that it may also have attracted the attention of the Bangladeshi authorities, thus adding to the risk that he may be subjected to torture if returned. As to the issue of his passport, the complainant states that “everything – passports included- are for sale”. Supplementary submissions of the State party and the complainant: 6.1 On 19 February 2004, the State party submitted that the complainant’s condition had improved as he had been discharged from the psychiatric clinic. As to the confidential report, the State party submits that a copy of the report was sent to the complainant’s former counsel on 19 May 2003. A copy of the Swedish embassy’s report was also sent on the following day. 6.2 The State party highlights some of the notes made in his medical records while in compulsory psychiatric care including: the fact that although his emotional and formal contact with the doctors was bad, he was not inhibited with the other patients; he did not cooperate to any appreciable extent; it is unclear how much is in fact attributable to acting on his part, in view of his present situation. The State party also refers to the recent case of T. M. v. Sweden7, in which the Committee referred to the significant shift in political power in Bangladesh in reaching its conclusion that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim of a risk of torture. 6.3 On 19 and 28 March 2004, the complainant sent a further medical report to highlight the severe form of post traumatic stress syndrome he is suffering from. 6.4 On 26 October 2004, in response to a request by the Secretariat for a copy of the judgment, in which the State party claim the complainant’s name is not one of the 18 accused and convicted of murder, the State party expresses its regret that it is not in a position to provide this judgment at short notice and would need around two months in order to obtain a copy. In any event, it argues that the burden is on the complainant, who invoked the judgment, to produce a copy. Neither has he presented a copy to the Swedish authorities or to the Committee. Nor has he provided any explanation as to why this has not been done. On 31 November 2004, the Committee, through the Secretariat, requested a copy of this judgment in English. On 22 April 2005, the State party provided the Committee with a copy, in which the complainant’s name is not included as one of the accused and/or convicted persons. Issues and proceedings before the Committee: Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of 7 Case No. 228/2003, Views adopted on 18 November 2003.