CAT/C/32/D/196/2002 Page 6 party, its Embassy in Dhaka commissioned a lawyer to investigate the matter. The lawyer, who examined the registers of all the five Metropolitan and District Sessions Courts of Dhaka, could not find any judgment passed against the complainant during the year 2001 in relation to murder, treason or antistate activities charges. This was also confirmed by the Embassy of the United States in Bangladesh. 4.8 4.9 The Embassy also tried to contact the complainant’s lawyer, but was told by an individual claiming to be his brother that he was temporarily out of town. Finally, the Embassy was informed by the house owner that no one with the complainant’s name had lived at the address referred to in the telefax from the complainant’s lawyer. The State party therefore questions the complainant’s account about the murder charge and the judgment on treason and anti-state activities. It adds that should such judgment exist, the complainant could appeal against it in a whatsoever higher court. Moreover, the complainant has not submitted any documentation regarding the judgment or the arrest warrant, or the appeal against the judgment, which he claims was filed by his lawyer. The State party points out that the events that allegedly prompted the complainant’s departure from Bangladesh appear to have been directly linked to his active support of the BNP. It is therefore of vital importance to the assessment of the present case to acknowledge that the BNP has been the ruling party in Bangladesh sine 1 October 2001. The State party considers that the shift in political authority implies that there no longer exists a basis for the complainant’s claim that he would risk torture upon his return to Bangladesh and the burden to substantiate his claims now is all the heavier on the complainant. 6 4.10 The State party adds that the grounds for which the complainant previously was tortured no longer exist, since he first was tortured in 1990 for belonging to an organization to which he does not seem to belong to anymore, and for the other instances for participating in the work of the BNP, which is now the ruling party in Bangladesh. 4.11 The State party points to several inconsistencies and shortcomings in the complainant’s account that it considers to be of relevance to the assessment of his credibility. Firstly, during the asylum interview and despite the fact that the complainant was asked to state the reasons for his application, he did not mention that he had been abused by the Bangladesh police until the interviewer brought up the subject of torture and then only on vague and general terms. In particular, although asked by the interviewer whether he had been arrested on other occasions than on 10 November 1998, he did not mention that he had been arrested and tortured in connection with the expulsion from Sweden to Bangladesh in 1995. 4.12 Secondly, while the complainant initially mentioned three instances on which he had been subjected to torture, he mentioned a fourth occasion which should 6 The State party refers to the case of A.D. v. the Netherlands, case No. 96/1997, Decision adopted on 12 November 1999, para.7.4.