CAT/C/31/D/228/2003 Page 5 The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims he would be tortured in the even of return, and that his return would violate articles 2, 3 and 16 of the Convention. He claims that he would be arrested upon return to face protracted legal proceedings, and that this was not affected by the change of government, especially as no amnesty had been issued. The complainant cites the 2001 human rights report of the United States’ State Department, unspecified Amnesty International reports and a recent Swedish Foreign Office report, all on the general human rights situation in Bangladesh, as support for the proposition that the police routinely resorts to torture in investigations, with impunity, and that thus he would be exposed to a “very high risk” of torture in the event of return and arrest. Only exceptionally, he claims, are police officers sanctioned for use of torture. As evidence for the “almost total impunity” enjoyed by police officers and the country’s alleged unwillingness to respect its obligations under the Convention, he refers to an indemnity ordinance issued in respect of acts committed by the armed forces between 16 October [presumably 2002] and 24 January 2003. 3.2 The complainant also argues that his removal from Sweden in the circumstances described in paragraph 2.8 above violated article 16 of the Convention. 3.3 The complainant states that the same matter has not been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 By letter of 12 May 2003, the State party contested the admissibility and merits of the complaint. While conceding domestic remedies had been exhausted, it argues that, in the light of its submissions on the merits, the complainant has not substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under article 3. As to the claim that his expulsion in addition would violate articles 2 and 16, the State party notes that article 2 requires a State party to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture, and that an expulsion cannot be considered an act which intentionally causes pain or suffering of such severity so as to bring it within the definition of torture contained in article 1, for one of the purposes enumerated there. This claim is thus incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, is insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and the complainant does not have the necessary victim status to bring this claim. As to article 16, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that the obligation of non-refoulement does not extend to situations where a risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment may exist,1 and therefore considers this claim incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.2 As to the separate claim that the specific circumstances of the complainant’s expulsion violated article 16 in view of his physical and mental condition, the State party refers to academic commentary that the purpose of this article is to protect persons deprived of their liberty or under factual power or control of the person responsible for treatment or punishment. As the complainant cannot be a victim in this 1 B.S. v Canada Case No 166/2000, Decision adopted on 14 November 2001.