CAT/C/34/D/221/2002 Page 5 complainant had only regained about 70% of his former capacity, he resumed his political activities. 2.7 In July 2000, the complainant was again arrested and falsely accused of illegal possession of arms and drug dealing. He was refused bail on account of the seriousness of the charges and remanded in custody for two and a half months awaiting trial. He indicates that his father “arranged” for his case pending not to be joined with the murder case. While on remand he was subjected to mental torture; and forced to watch while others were tortured. Upon release on bail in September 2000, he was again administered medical treatment. 2.8 In February 2001, the complainant left Bangladesh, not because of an isolated incident but because of everything that had happened to him since 1995 and because he feared being killed either by followers of the Awami League or the BNP, and of being subjected to torture again. That the BNP and its coalition partners won the elections in October 2001 did not allay his fear. 2.9 On 14 February 2001, the complainant entered Sweden, and requested asylum on the same day. Counsel requested a delay of the examination of the case until 31 January 2002, to obtain documentary evidence of the complainant’s case from Bangladesh. The Migration Board rejected counsel’s request for such a delay. 2.10 While in Sweden, the complainant was informed that the police in Bangladesh had been looking for him and that they had a warrant for his arrest, as he had not appeared in court. He requested medical assistance in Sweden at the clinic for asylum seekers in Fittja. 2.11 On 19 December 2001, the Migration Board denied his application. The Board did not consider credible that the complainant had been persecuted by Bangladeshi authorities, since he, although wanted for murder, had been able to travel back and forth between Bangladesh and India. It also noted that one page of the complainant’s passport had been torn out, and that it was not probable that he was released on bail given the serious charges against him. In its conclusion, the Board also stated that it