CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 Bangladesh is willing and able to convict members of the police and the military. Thus, the author’s claim that “the authorities are an important part of the [corruption] problem, making it impossible to go to them for help” would appear to be untrue as it relates to her specific circumstances. 6.15 The author has not provided any evidence to support her allegations concerning the reason the death sentences were reversed and the criminal convictions were appealed. The author claims that these actions are due to the fact that the Government changed in 2008 (from the Bangladesh National Party to the Awami League). The author notes that it is not unusual in Bangladesh for sentences to be overturned with the arrival of a new Government. However, it can no longer be said that the Awami League is a “new Government”, since it has been in power for six years and had been in power for five years at the time that the author submitted her complaint to the Committee. Furthermore, according to the author’s communication, her brother’s murderers are B., K. S. and P. The only information provided by the author that is purportedly about the murder case is the photocopy of a screen shot, apparently of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh website, referring to a number of cases involving three individuals (B., A. and P.). However, there is no evidence to confirm that these are the same individuals identified by the author as her brother’s murderers. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Awami League Government has interfered or is interfering in the murder case. 6.16 The State party also considers that the author has not shown that she would not have an internal flight alternative in Bangladesh. The Refugee Protection Division considered this issue when it noted that the author’s alleged persecutor, S., was a police inspector in Rajshahi, a city 250 kilometres from Dhaka. The Division found that there was no evidence of any specific political connections on S.’s part, thereby implying that S. had no influence beyond Rajshahi. The author’s evidence confirms that S. has no influence. The author’s husband, four of their five children and her mother have remained in Bangladesh. In addition, the author’s extended family, particularly her father’s side of the family, is large and many members continue to reside in Bangladesh, including numerous aunts, uncles and cousins. Thus, it appears that there are many places in Bangladesh where the author could safely reside. 6.17 The author’s allegations of persecution concern the actions of a private individual, S., and not State authorities. The Refugee Protection Division noted that State protection was available to the author, given that the police in Bangladesh had arrested and charged the three individuals responsible for I.’s murder. These actions were taken despite the fact that at the time of their arrests, K.S. was an army captain, P. was a police inspector and B. had one brother who was a police inspector (i.e., S.) and another brother who was an army captain (i.e., K.S.). As per the author’s communication, all three individuals were subsequently tried and convicted by a court in Bangladesh. The Division further noted the availability of State protection after considering L.’s testimony during H.’s asylum appeal proceedings (to the effect that S. had engaged in clandestine harassment of L. in order to avoid detection). The Division considered that this testimony weakened the author’s claims of a lack of State protection “because the implication of S. keeping a low profile is that there exists State protection”. The author has not presented evidence demonstrating that any of S.’s threats were in any way sanctioned by the State. Indeed, given L.’s testimony at H.’s appeal hearing, the logical inference is that the State did not sanction S.’s alleged behaviour. In the light of the foregoing, the State party concludes that the author has not established that her rights under articles 6 or 7 would be violated should she be returned to Bangladesh. 6.18 The State party further submits that the author’s claims under articles 9 (1) and 26 are inadmissible ratione materiae, because these articles do not have extraterritorial application, and are without merit in the light of the foregoing. 9