CAT/C/46/D/338/2008 4.10 Regarding the complainant’s past experience of torture, the State party notes that his request for a torture injuries examination was rejected by the Migration Board. It contends that he does not seem to have insisted on the examination after that, nor has he had the alleged torture injuries documented at his own initiative. The medical documentation that has been submitted by the complainant to both the Swedish Migration authorities and the Committee, focuses on the complainant’s mental health. The only exception is the two Discharge certificates from the Dhaka Clinic that certify “cut injuries and laceration analfimere.” The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence and states that the aim of the Committee’s examination is to determine whether the complainant would risk being subjected to torture now, if returned to his home country. It submits that should the Committee considers it to be established that the complainant has been subjected to torture by the Bangladeshi police in the manner he has asserted, this does not mean that he has thereby substantiated his claim that he will risk torture if returned to his country of origin. 4.11 The State party refers to the Migration Court relating the complainant’s sexual orientation and his family’s knowledge about this. He had had a relationship with his boyfriend since 1997 and they lived together in his house. He stated that no one found it strange as it was not unusual for two men to live together. It questions how he was able to keep his sexual orientation from his family as he had been living for such a long time in a relationship with another man. It states that homosexual acts are illegal in Bangladesh under its Penal Code. The sanction may be imprisonment for life. However, according to the information provided in human rights reports on Bangladesh it rarely happens that a person is prosecuted under this section. It also adds that the human rights reports do not support the conclusion that Bangladeshi authorities are actively persecuting homosexuals or that there is a general need of protection for homosexual asylum seekers from Bangladesh. The biggest problem for homosexuals is the social stigma that follows for homosexuals and other persons living outside the social norms of the Bangladeshi society. The complainant did not submit any documents supporting his claim or otherwise substantiated his claim that he is currently of interest to the Bangladeshi authorities owing to his sexual orientation. However should he be of interest to Bangladeshi authorities, he would most probably be able to live and work in other places in Bangladesh where he is not previously known. The certificate from the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights submitted by the complainant is not an expert opinion as has been alleged by the complainant. The same is in relation to the later certificate from the same federation dated 27 January 2007 also submitted to the Committee. 4.12 It submits that in order to support his claim that he risks being persecuted and even killed by Islamic fundamentalists because of his sexual orientation, the complainant submitted a poster with a proclamation of the fatwa that has been put on him. The poster with the fatwa and his face on it has been spread in various areas but he does not know if it has been spread in the whole country. It submits that the Government in Bangladesh is secular, even if a religion forms a platform for certain political parties and Shari’a is not formally implemented. It also questions whether there is a risk that the complainant may now be of interest to Islamic fundamentalists, considering the time that has elapsed since he left Bangladesh. According to information available on Bangladesh fatwa does not gain legal force. However if such a risk exist, it would most certainly be of a local character so that the complainant would be able to secure his safety by moving within the country. The State party admits that the Migration Board did not consider the fatwa but the complainant does not know to what extent the fatwa has been spread and he has no evidence of this being the case. 4.13 As to the complainant’s claim that Hindus are hindered in their religious activities, that the Muslims try to get their lands by illegal means and that they are disadvantaged as regards to access to jobs, the State party submits that the kind of difficulties that minority groups like Hindus may experience in Bangladesh can hardly be considered to amount to 7