CAT/C/58/D/627/2014 serious violence. In support of his claim, he submitted to the Migration Agency a medical certificate from his country of origin and to the Migration Court an “invalidity” certificate issued in Sweden. The complainant also submitted copies of court documents from Bangladesh concerning his family’s police report of the assault to which he was subjected. In addition, he submitted a business certificate, business cards, eight photographs of his family’s home in Bangladesh and an appeal to the Greek authorities written by his parents. 4.16 In that connection, the State party notes that, like the Migration Agency, it considers that the photographs submitted of the complainant’s family are irrelevant. It also notes that in its decision, the Migration Agency considered that the document signed by the complainant’s parents could not be accorded any great importance as it consisted only of an appeal to the Greek authorities concerning the complainant. In addition, the Migration Agency noted that the membership document was of a “simple nature” and could easily be forged and that its probative value was thus low. 4.17 As regards the Bangladesh court documents submitted in support, the Migration Agency has had a local lawyer in Bangladesh verify their authenticity. The response from the Embassy of Sweden in Dhaka, which handled the contact with the local lawyer, showed that all of the court documents should be considered as forged. The documents were, for example, issued by a court that had not been established on the date on which they were issued and the stamps and signatures on the documents were also forged. Moreover, the judge who allegedly signed all of the documents in 2005 only started working in that court in 2008. The registration number on the police report showed that the case was not opened by the authorities until 2011 and not in 2005, when the alleged crime took place. The complainant, who was given the opportunity to respond to that information, rejected the information that the documents were forgeries. As the burden of proof is on the complainant, the State party maintains that he has not submitted anything to support the claim that a court existed in the location in question in 2005. In addition, the State party notes that the Migration Agency also considered that there was a lack of support for the complainant’s claim that “the individual official’s information was not reliable”. 4.18 As concerns the medical certificate from Bangladesh, the State party submits that the Migration Agency noted that the document consisted of a standard form that was signed and stamped and in which the medical information was handwritten. In the light of the “simple nature” of the document and as the Migration Agency had already questioned the written evidence concerning the alleged cause of the injuries the complainant sought to prove with this document, the Agency considered that the medical certificate had a particularly low probative value. The State party adds that the Migration Court also noted that the certificate was of a “simple nature” and had a low probative value. Moreover, the Migration Agency noted that the complainant had not submitted any noteworthy medical documentation from the Swedish health-care system concerning the physical injuries he claims to have suffered, even though he had had adequate time to do so. Although the certificate that the complainant submitted concerning a period of hospitalization dated 6 May 2013 states that he received treatment in Sweden, the Migration Agency observed that it contained no information concerning what led to the need for treatment or what exact treatment he received. The Migration Agency thus considered that the certificate of hospitalization in Sweden lacked a connection to his claimed need for protection with respect to his country of origin. In the light of that, the State party shares the view of the Migration Agency that the written evidence submitted by the complainant cannot prove in itself the threat and abuses to which he claims to have been subjected. 4.19 Furthermore, the State party notes that the complainant states to the Committee that the medical certificate from Bangladesh was of a “simple nature” and that he, regrettably enough, was never informed of the importance of documenting his injuries. The State party 8