CAT/C/46/D/338/2008 2.9 In support of his claims, he had presented his national passport, the Mosque’s fatwa against him, as well as certificates of his membership in BDB, a press article, and Swedish medical journal. 2.10 On 15 June 2005, the Migration Board rejected the complainant’s asylum application. The Board noted first, that the complainant failed to establish his identity as his passport was damaged. The complainant’s political activities were not placed at doubt, but the Board noted that they had been only limited in time and in place. As to the torture allegations, the Board concluded that it was an isolated act, and that the complainant should have complained at higher level in order to report the torture. The Board did not find any evidence that a criminal case against the complainant was ongoing in Bangladesh. The religious faith of the complainant has not, according to the Board, given him problems so as to make him in need of protection. The Board had admitted that homosexuality was criminalized in Bangladesh and could be punished with life imprisonment. In practice, however, there is no active persecution of homosexuals in Bangladesh. 2.11 On appeal, the complainant affirmed that he had been in touch with Mr. Mahi Chouwdhury in August 2005, who informed him that the police was still investigating the accusations against the complainant. The procedure was at a preliminary stage and was confidential. The complainant adds that his family has disappeared. Even though a few pages of his passport were missing, they did not include those containing his name, address, photograph, etc. In relation to his political activities, he contended that even though his political activities were conducted only locally, he had been arrested and tortured on two occasions because of them. 2.12 In relation to his religion and homosexuality, the complainant has pointed out that these two grounds combined aggravate his situation in Bangladesh. The fact that he is a Hindu makes it more probable for him to be sentenced to life imprisonment because of his homosexuality than if he would be a Muslim in the same situation. He also pointed out that the Migration Board has omitted to comment on the fatwa issued against him. 2.13 The Migration Board of Appeals ceased to exist in March 2006, and the complainant’s case was referred to the Stockholm Migration Court. The complainant added to his complaint, inter alia, medical certificates issued in 2006 and 2007, by Swedish medical specialists, who concluded that the complainant suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and depression, and that he would need a long and continuous treatment. 2.14 On 3 April 2007, the Court found that the information before it did not permit it to doubt on Mr. Mondal’s credibility. It concluded, however, that the complainant failed to establish that in Bangladesh he would be persecuted because of his past political opinions. The Court further concluded, in relation to the complainant’s homosexuality, that he again failed to prove that he would be persecuted on this ground. With regard to persecution based on religion, the Court found that the mere fact that he belonged to a minority group did not constitute sufficient reason. Finally, the Court found that the complainant had not made it probable that there existed reasons to believe that he would be punished with death penalty, or subjected to ill-treatment or torture, in relation to his allegations that there was a risk to be arrested again. The court found no humanitarian reasons to grant a residence permit to the complainant. 2.15 The complainant appealed this decision with the Supreme Court of Migrations Appeals. On 31 August 2007, the Supreme Court of Migrations Appeals rejected the complaint. 4