CAT/C/34/D/221/2002 Page 7 Bangladesh. Further, he argues that the Board did not question his information about what he was subjected to or what happened to him in Bangladesh. The State party’s submission: 4.1 On 19 May 2003, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. It submits that the claim under article 3 should be declared inadmissible, since it lacks the minimum of substantiation to make it compatible with provisions of the Convention. 4.2 As regards the complaint related to article 16, the State party submits that it should be declared inadmissible, since this provision does not apply in the present case. According to the Committee’s General Comment on the implementation of article 3, the obligation on a State party to refrain from returning a person to another State is only applicable if the person is in danger of being subjected to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. Article 3 of the Convention does not contain a reference to “other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as article 16, nor does article 16 contain a reference to article 3. For the State party, the purpose of article 16 is to protect persons deprived of their liberty or who are otherwise under the factual power or control of the person responsible for the treatment or punishment, and that the complainant is not a victim in that sense. In any event, the claim under article 16 lacks the minimum substantiation to make it compatible with provisions of the Convention. 4.3 Alternatively, the State party submits that the complainant’s claims are unfounded. 4.4 Regarding the complainant’s claim under article 3, the State party acknowledges that the general human rights situation in Bangladesh is problematic but contends that it has improved from a long-term perspective, and that persecution for political reasons is rare at grass-roots level and may under any circumstances be avoided by seeking refuge in another part of the country.