CAT/C/58/D/627/2014 4.23 In addition, the State party submits that the Migration Court also considered that the complainant did not have a senior position in the party. Further, the court noted that more than eight years had passed since the complainant left Bangladesh and no documentation had emerged to suggest that he continued to be politically and religiously active. Accordingly, the State party agrees with the Migration Court that the circumstances strongly suggest that the complainant would not be of special interest to the Bangladesh authorities. 4.24 The State party further notes the conclusions of the Migration Agency that the complainant had submitted contradictory information. In particular, during the interview the complainant stated that he had sought help from the authorities in Bangladesh but that they had not offered him any assistance. Later in the same interview, he stated that he had not contacted the authorities owing to his fear of their retribution. Furthermore, he then asserted that his parents had contacted the authorities, but not until he had left the country. However, according to a copy of his father’s complaint, the complaint was filed on 17 July 2004, when the complainant was still in the country. In the light of the above and of the country of origin information, according to which the authorities do not routinely persecute or harass members of opposition parties, the State party shares the view of the Migration Agency that the complainant has not submitted a plausible explanation as to why he did not contact the authorities in his country of origin himself. The State party also emphasizes that the Migration Agency found it odd that the report filed is, according to the complainant, an open case with the authorities in his country, despite the fact that he has never been interviewed by the authorities about the alleged offences committed against him. 4.25 In the light of the foregoing, the State party maintains that the present complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, as the same matter has been examined under another procedure of international investigation; or under article 22 (2) for being manifestly unfounded. In the alternative, the State party submits that the present complaint reveals no violation of the Convention. Additional submissions by the parties 5.1 On 10 August 2015, the complainant noted that even though his application to the European Court of Human Rights concerned the same matter as the present communication, nevertheless there was nothing in the letter from the Court clearly indicating that his application was declared inadmissible for reasons related to substance, rather than on procedural grounds, and that the application was decided on the merits. According to the complainant, the Court did not use its usual wording, namely that the complainant’s claims were manifestly ill-founded. 5.2 The complainant further notes that the State party has referred to a number of reports on the general human rights situation in Bangladesh, but it did not refer to a Human Rights Watch report entitled “World report 2015: Bangladesh”, which had already been released in January 2015, when the State party submitted its observations. He adds that another more recent report on the situation in Bangladesh was released by the United States Department of State on 25 June 2015 entitled “Country reports on human rights practices for 2014 – Bangladesh”. According to the Human Rights Watch report of January 2015, hundreds of people were killed and injured in violent attacks in connection with the elections in Bangladesh in January 2014. The security forces carried out abductions, killings and arbitrary arrests, particularly targeting opposition leaders and their supporters, and unacceptable restrictions had been imposed on freedom of expression. Further, according to the Department of State report of June 2015, the most serious human rights violations during 2014 were extrajudicial killings and disappearances, and 10 individuals had been tortured to death by the security forces. That general information, according to the 10