CAT/C/32/D/196/2002 Page 5 4.1 On 13 May 2002, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. 4.2 On the issue of admissibility, the State party notes that all domestic remedies appear to have been exhausted, but that the complainant may lodge a new request for a residence permit with the Aliens Appeals Board at any time. Such a request must be considered by the Board, provided that new circumstances are adduced that would warrant a different decision. 4.3 The State party denies that the complainant’s return to Bangladesh would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. While the general human rights situation in Bangladesh is not ideal and there are repeated reports of police torture, the Bangladesh Constitution prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and the judiciary displays a significant degree of independence, having for example criticised the police for abuse of detention laws and powers. 4.4 Concerning the complainant’s personal risk of being subjected to torture in Bangladesh, the State party draws attention to the fact that several provisions in the Alien’s Act reflect the principle laid down in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and that the Swedish Immigration authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum as the Committee does under the Convention. That such a test was applied in the present case is illustrated by the fact that the domestic authorities refer to Chapter 3, Section 3 of the Aliens Act and to article 3 of the Convention. 4.5 The State party notes that it is primarily for the complainant to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account.4 His credibility is of vital importance to the assessment of an asylum application. The Swedish Immigration authorities held a two hours interview before they made a decision in the present case. Thus the Board had ample time to make important additional observations, which, taken together with the facts and the documentation in the case, ensured that it had a solid basis for making its assessment of the complainant’s need for protection in Sweden. 4.6 The State party recalls that although medical certificates establish that the complainant was subjected to torture, the aim of the Committee’s examination of the complaint is to ascertain whether the complainant is at risk of torture upon his return.5 4.7 The State party understands the complaint to be founded in particular on the allegation that he risks being tortured upon return as a consequence of the alleged murder charge and the alleged judgment of 3 September 2001. It notes that the only piece of evidence submitted in this regard is a fax allegedly received from his lawyer in Bangladesh. Following a request from the State 4 The State party refers to the cases of S.L. v. Sweden, case No. 150/1999, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para.6.4, and M.R.P v. Switzerland case No. 122/1998, Views adopted on 24 November 2000, para.6.5. 5 The State party refers to the cases of X., Y.and Z. v. Sweden, case No. 61/1996, Views adopted on 6 May 1998, para.11.2.