CAT/C/46/D/338/2008 that the complainant is at risk of being detained upon his return to Bangladesh, this does not constitute substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 4.5 The State party submits that several provisions of both the 1989 Aliens Act and the 2005 Aliens Act reflect the same principles as that laid down in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Thus the Swedish authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the Committee. It adds that the national authority conducting the asylum interview is in a very good position to assess the information submitted by the asylum seeker and to estimate the credibility of his or her claims. It mentions that the Migration Board took its decision after two interviews conducted with the complainant. The second interview lasted for two hours. Thus, it had sufficient information which taken together with the facts and documentation in the case, ensured that it had a solid basis for its assessment of the complainant’s need for protection. 4.6 The State party adds that in his complaint to the Committee, the complainant has not provided any detailed explanation of why his expulsion to Bangladesh would be in violation of the Convention. He confined only the fact that he risks being arrested on return to Bangladesh and therefore also being subjected to torture. It adds that the complaint is too vague, imprecise and lacking in details on important points to be examined on the merits. 4.7 The political situation in Bangladesh has changed since the complainant left the country. According to the complainant, it was the ruling party, the BNP, that persecuted him and initiated false accusations against him. The complainant submitted an undated letter from Mahi Chowdhuri that he is under the threat from BNP members. However, the BNP is no longer the ruling party in Bangladesh. The country is at the moment run by a caretaker Government and will continue to be so until general elections have been held. Since BNP does not have the same position as it did when the complainant left Bangladesh, the risk of being exposed to harassment by the authorities at the instigation of that party should have diminished considerably. 4.8 The State party adds that the complainant has not, with the exception of the above statement from Mahi Chowdhuri, submitted any documents supporting his claim that he is currently of interest to the Bangladeshi authorities owing to his political involvement or for any other reason. During the second interview by the Migration authorities he stated that he had no documents regarding the false accusations against him. He also stated that he had not filed any complaint against the police officers who maltreated him. Nor has he provided any details or further information as to the present situation concerning the alleged accusations. He has argued that it is not possible to get hold of any evidence as long as the preliminary investigation is going on. However, the State party contends that in the proceedings before the Migration Board the complainant mentioned a document that was shown to him at the clinic in Dhaka, containing a list of suspected persons and including his name. He has also been able to get other documents from Bangladesh, allegedly from the same person who showed him the aforementioned list. It has therefore been questioned why it has been impossible for him to get hold of evidence of the alleged cases against him. 4.9 The State party also refers to the decisions by the Migration Board and Migration Court that the complainant does not appear to have held any leading position within the party. It contends that due to the length of his political involvement (less than a year) and also the amount of time that has passed since the political involvement and the alleged instances of torture the complainant would not be a political figure of such importance and of such interest to the authorities to believe that he would be in danger of being subjected to persecution upon his return. The complainant’s former party has joined the Liberal Democratic Party and ceased to exist. Should the risk of persecution still exist it would be of a local character and he could therefore in any event secure his safety by moving within the country. 6