CAT/C/34/D/221/2002 Page 13 fraction constitutes one part of the problems to the fraction the complainant belongs to, the Ershad fraction, in that it applies political pressure to make members change from the Ershad fraction to the Naziur Rahmen fraction. The complainant has described his political activities in detail before the Migration Board and the Aliens Appeals Board, and neither institution questioned his activities. 6.4 In respect of the State party’s suggestion that the complainant is not of interest to the Bangladeshi authorities since he could move about in the country while being charged with murder, counsel submits that his movements were limited, and that because Bangladesh did not have a centralized data system, he was not apprehended by the police before 1999. 6.5 Counsel submits documentation to the effect that the author was examined by doctors at the Centre for victims of torture and trauma in December 2003. The psychiatrist concludes that it is beyond doubt that Mr. M.M.K. has been tortured in the way he describes. He also concludes that the author is suicidal. The forensic report lists a number of findings of scars and injuries which are typical for victims of violence and support the author’s description of torture. 6.6 Counsel also submits a declaration by the Vice Chairman of the Jatiyo Party Central Committee, confirming that the author has been an active member of the party since 1991, and that he was subjected to government harassment and persecution for his political belief. 6.7 By note of 23 April 2004, the State party submits that the new documentation from counsel is lodged out of time and should not be considered by the Committee. In the event that the Committee decides to consider the additional documentation, the documentation was presented long after the national authorities had determined his case and shortly before the Committee is about to decide it. The fact that medical evidence is obtained and invoked at such a late time is generally likely to diminish its value. With regard to the pending court case against the author, the Embassy engaged a lawyer who reported to the Embassy on 29 February 2004 that the court of Bogra