CAT/C/59/D/610/2014 to assess whether the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. It refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 and notes that the Committee is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body; that considerable weight will be given to the findings of organs of the State party concerned; 2 and that it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 3 The State party submits that the domestic authorities have thoroughly examined the complainant’s case, that the Swedish Migration Board conducted three interviews with the complainant, with the participation of the complainant’s legal counsel and an interpreter, whom the complainant claimed to understand well. The legal counsel was allowed to ask the complainant questions during the interview and to scrutinize the minutes afterwards. On appeal, the Migration Court also held an oral interview with the complainant, with the participation of his counsel and an interpreter. 4.5 The State party submits that the domestic authorities were not able to confirm the identity of the complainant. The passport he presented was issued to him through an agent. He admitted that he had lived in Greece in 2008, under a different name, and that he had used a fake passport to enter Sweden. Also, during a police check conducted at his place of work, the complainant had a name and date of birth that was different from those he gave during the asylum procedure. 4.6 The State party further submits that the complainant gave different reasons for requesting protection to the domestic authorities in his asylum application and to the Committee in his submission: to the domestic authorities he said that, if returned to Bangladesh, he would risk being imprisoned for life or sentenced to death owing to false criminal charges made against him by a powerful person with whom he had been in a land dispute; to the Committee, he claimed that he was seeking protection from political persecution by the ruling Awami League party and the law enforcement agents who had searched for him at his house and had interrogated and threatened his father. The complainant brought forward a claim about being politically active in Bangladesh only in the application for re-examination of his case, once the expulsion order against him had become final and non-appealable. However, since his identity could not be properly established, and since the documents were copies and not originals, the domestic authorities gave low evidentiary value to the documents presented by the author. The State party concludes that the complainant has failed to plausibly establish that he would be at risk owing to his political activities. 4.7 The State party states that the author had applied for a passport at the Embassy of Bangladesh in 2008, when he was in Greece, but that he had left the country before he was able to pick it up. During the asylum proceedings, he failed to submit any documents to support his allegations regarding the land dispute, which had allegedly led to false criminal charges being made against him, and regarding the hospitalization that had resulted from an assault connected to said land dispute. The State party submits that the author was 2 3 in=title&sort=date; United States, Department of State, “2013 country reports on human rights practices: Bangladesh”, available from www.state.gov/documents/organization/220600.pdf; and Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014: Bangladesh, available from https://www.hrw.org/worldreport/2014/country-chapters/bangladesh. Reference is made to communication No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 22 November 2006, para. 8.6. Reference is made to communication No. 219/2002, G.K. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 7 May 2003, para. 6.12. 3