CAT/C/58/D/627/2014 6.2 As to the complainant’s argument that he had been in contact with his lawyer in Bangladesh concerning the forged documents, but had not received an acceptable explanation as to why the documents had shown, for example, the wrong court, the State party recalls that after the Migration Agency had requested that a local lawyer in Bangladesh verify the authenticity of the documents, the complainant initially criticized the conclusion that the documents were forgeries. The State party finds it remarkable that the complainant has not at the present stage been able to provide an acceptable explanation regarding the false documents that were submitted. In addition, it is noteworthy that in his submission of 10 August 2015, the complainant presented similar documents, but from another court. In view of this, the State party maintains that the new evidence cannot be deemed reliable. It also raises questions about the credibility of the complainant. 6.3 As to the complainant’s arguments in the context of the public counsel to him, the State party notes that according to the minutes of the interview at the Migration Agency on 11 April 2012, the complainant stated that he had no specific requirements and that he accepted the counsel appointed by the Migration Agency. The public counsel was appointed on 17 April 2012, he attended the interview on 2 May 2012 and posed questions regarding the complainant’s reasons for asylum. A copy of the minutes from the interview was then communicated to the public counsel, who, on 9 July 2012, submitted further supplementary observations to the Migration Agency. Later in the proceedings, the public counsel was again given the opportunity to comment on the complainant’s case when further questions were posed by the Migration Agency regarding his identity. On 29 April 2013, the public counsel requested an extension of the time limit as, despite two separate invitations and phone calls, he had not been able to contact the complainant. On 6 May 2013, the public counsel submitted his closing statements in the case. Furthermore, upon the complainant’s request, by a decision of 12 September 2013, the Migration Court dismissed the counsel and appointed a new one, owing to the fact that the complainant had not been able to contact his counsel despite several attempts. However, according to the State party, in the light of the information on the complainant’s asylum case file, it is evident that the first public counsel did perform his duties in a satisfactory manner. In addition, in the context of the complainant’s request for oral hearing during the appeals proceedings, the State party notes that the Court found that an oral hearing was not necessary owing to the investigation carried out in the case and the nature of the case. The new public counsel was given an opportunity to submit his final observations and another request for an oral hearing. The State party notes that this demonstrates that the complainant had proper legal representation and was given the opportunity to present his case fully with the assistance of legal counsel throughout the asylum proceedings. 6.4 The State party adds that during the interview on 11 April 2012, the complainant, inter alia, accounted for his reasons for leaving his home country and what he risked if he were to return to Bangladesh. On 2 May 2012, the Migration Agency conducted an investigation regarding the complainant’s reasons for seeking asylum. During the interview on 3 May 2012, he submitted information concerning his identity, passport, family situation, health, education and work. In that connection, the State party submits that according to the minutes of the interview held on 2 May 2012, the complainant was informed that it could be the only occasion to present his asylum claims orally. Further, he was informed that it was his responsibility to present all his claims and that it was important that all his reasons were presented during the investigation. The complainant confirmed that he understood the interpreter well. In that connection, the State party reiterates that the minutes of the asylum investigation were communicated to the public counsel, who later submitted five pages of supplementary information and arguments. 6.5 The State party finally reiterates its position concerning the significance of the invalidity and medical certificates from Bangladesh and notes several mistakes in the complainant’s translations of the minutes of his asylum interview of 2 May 2012. In the 12