CAT/C/34/D/221/2002 Page 9 therefore only be of local character, and he could avoid harassment by moving within the country, as he did when he was charged with murder in 1995. 4.10 The State party notes that the complainant only invoked one certificate from Bangladesh and one certificate from the Fittja health centre in support of his allegations of past torture. The certificate from Bangladesh is undated and merely states that the complainant arrived to the clinic on 15 October 2000, after being subjected to physical torture, and was treated for physical injuries and mental depression. However, during the interview with the Migration Board, the complainant emphasised that when he was arrested in July 2000 he was subjected to mental but not physical torture. The certificate from Fittja does not include an assessment of whether the author was tortured and does not mention physical injuries or post-traumatic stress disorder. 4.11 The State party has engaged the Swedish Embassy in Dhaka to look into the two ongoing criminal trials against the complainant, through a local lawyer. He found that the complainant had been acquitted of the murder charges on 29 August 2000, but that he is accused in another case pending before the court. Accordingly, no murder case was pending against the complainant when Swedish authorities examined his asylum application. Notwithstanding reported shortcomings of the judicial system in Bangladesh, the complainant cannot argue that he did not receive a fair trial in respect of the murder charges against him, and may also be acquitted in the case of kidnapping against him. In the case of kidnapping he benefits from legal representation, and may appeal to a higher court. The State party recalls that the higher courts in Bangladesh are reported to display a significant degree of independence from the executive. 4.12 Should the circumstances be such that the complainant risks being detained upon return to Bangladesh, either to be tried or to serve a prison sentence, this does not justify the conclusion that he risks being subjected to torture. The complainant has not shown how he would be in danger of such politically motivated persecution as would render him particularly vulnerable to torture during a possible period of detention.