CAT/C/34/D/226/2003 Page 8 the police have continued to look for her after she left Bangladesh. She maintains that she risks the same treatment if returned to Bangladesh. 3.2 She contends that, considering the medical evidence in her case, the execution of the deportation order would in itself constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention, and perhaps also of article 2 of the Convention, in view of her and her daughter’s fragile psychiatric condition and severe post-traumatic stress disorder, which is the result of the persecution and torture to which she was subjected. 3.3 The complainant alleges that the description of torture she suffered coincides with what is generally known about torture by the police in Bangladesh. She invokes various reports from governments and international NGOs. According to these reports, torture practiced by the police against political opponents is not only allowed by the Executive, but is also often instigated and supported by it. Moreover, domestic courts are not independent and the decisions of the higher courts are often ignored by the executive. 3.4 The complainant challenges the Aliens Appeals Board’s finding, that because of the changed situation in Bangladesh after the elections of October 2001, she is no longer exposed to the risk of torture if returned. She argues that these elections did not constitute such a fundamental change in the political circumstances in Bangladesh that the grounds for persecution could be considered no longer to exist. The change of government did not in itself mean that people who had been subjected to false accusations or charges on account of their political activities would be acquitted of these accusations. They still risked arrest by the police and subsequent ill-treatment and torture. State party’s submissions on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint: 4.1 On 2 April 2003, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It acknowledges that all domestic remedies are exhausted, but contends that the communication is inadmissible since the complainant’s claim that she is at risk of treatment in violation of article 3 of the