CAT/C/34/D/220/2002 Page 7 torture by the police in 1997 and assaults by political opponents and Muslims in 1996 and 1999 but made no mention of torture in 1995. 4.9 The State party refers to the medical report in which it is concluded that the complainant was subjected to torture in the manner he stated and recalls the Aliens Appeals Board’s comment that the scars could be the result of the assault by Awami League supporters. However, the aim of the Committee’s examination is to establish whether the complainant would be currently at risk of torture if returned. Even if it were to be considered established through the evidence that the complainant was tortured in 1997, this does not mean that he has substantiated his claim that he will risk torture in the future. 4.10 The State party challenges the validity of the documents provided to prove his conviction for murder and anti-State activities. It states that following enquiries by the Swedish Embassy in Dhaka, it was established, after looking at the court records, that the complainant was not one of the 18 accused and convicted of murder, as claimed by him and allegedly confirmed in a lawyer’s affidavit. In the State party’s view, the results of this enquiry call into question the complainant’s credibility and the general veracity of his claims. As to the two arrest warrants submitted to support his claims, the State party notes that the complainant has not explained how he obtained such documents. 4.11 In addition, the State party points to various inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s evidence. It refers to the Migration Board’s reasoning that it was not probable that the complainant, who was a Christian and whose father had been a clergyman, would have been working for several years for a party whose primary goal is to protect the Islamic character of Bangladesh. Neither did the Board think it credible that a Christian would have been given the post of deputy coordinator. For this reason, the Board found that it was unlikely that the authorities had arrested the complainant for his political activities, or that he had been convicted of murder and anti-State activities. The State party considers it difficult to believe that the complainant would have been released in 1997 by the Magistrates Court following his mother’s promise that he would work for the Awami League, considering his claims, allegedly evidenced in the warrants submitted, that in 1997 the police were instructed to arrest him for the purposes of bringing him to court to answer charges of murder. It notes that the complainant had his passport renewed shortly before his departure which strongly indicates that he was not of interest to the authorities. 4.12 The State party enumerates why the complainant should not fear ill-treatment by the Bangladesh authorities in the event of return: he has not been politically involved since 1996; he told the interviewing official of the Migration Board that it was his mother who had planned for him to leave; although he alleges to have been tortured in 1997 he made no effort to leave immediately and stayed on for several years thereafter; the fact that the complainant’s mother asked, in an interview with a newspaper, the Bangladeshi authorities to help him makes no sense if the authorities themselves were the ones who he feared would ill-treat him.