CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 a letter written by her brother J. in 2006, in which he listed family members who were being threatened). The Division also noted that the alleged threats and efforts to intimidate the author’s family members, including her brother J. and her sister L., were poorly documented. The Division further found that there was no mention of the author, her mother or the threats that the author alleged had been made against them in a letter written by the author’s sister-in-law (M., I.’s widow) and dated more than a year after the author arrived in Canada, in which M. alleged that threats had been made against her, her children, her sister-in-law, L., and L.’s children. Specifically commenting on M.’s letter, the Division considered it a “credibility issue” that there was no mention of the author’s own allegations in the letter. At her protection hearing, the Division specifically questioned the author about this discrepancy. The author testified that M. had not mentioned either the author or her mother because she was only referring to her family in the United Kingdom. However, the Division rejected that explanation because the letter mentioned L. and her family (who initially remained in Bangladesh after the trial.) 6.9 The State party also observes that the Refugee Protection Division questioned the author as to why she could not provide more definitive evidence to clarify her allegations relating to either the Awami League’s efforts to secure the release of B. and K.S., or their actual release. The author informed the Division that she was unable to do so because there was “no one left [in Bangladesh]”. The Division did not accept that answer as being true because it was inconsistent with other evidence establishing that the author had extensive family connections in Bangladesh, including her husband, three daughters and numerous aunts, uncles and cousins. Since the murder and the murder trial had been so widely publicized, and because of the active and partisan nature of the press in Bangladesh, the Division expected that any significant developments in the murder case would likely have been reported by the press (in particular in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party papers in relation to efforts by the competing Awami League) or recorded in legal documents. However, no such reports or documents were provided to the Division. The Division reviewed the 2008 decision of the United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal concerning L.’s asylum application, as well as the 2012 appeal decision on the application for asylum in the United Kingdom of the author’s nephew, H. The Division observed that those decisions had provided a “developed analysis of the risk faced by the [author’s] family in Bangladesh”. The Division noted that in the decision on L.’s claim, it was set out quite explicitly that the author did not receive threats, nor did her mother. 6.10 In the 2012 decision on H.’s asylum appeal, there was no mention of any threats made to the author or her mother, even though H.’s hearing took place after the author had left Bangladesh and after her mother had allegedly died from anxiety brought on by the death threats. The Refugee Protection Division also noted that the testimony of the author’s sister L. at H.’s appeal hearing specifically contradicted the author’s claims that S. had specifically targeted L. (H.’s mother), since L., in answer to a question by the United Kingdom adjudicator as to why S. had not directly targeted her, testified that S. had engaged in “clandestine harassment” by filing fake legal cases. In addition to contradicting the author’s allegation that she was at risk, the Division found that L.’s testimony also weakened the author’s claim of a lack of State protection, since “the implication of S. keeping a low profile is that there exists State protection”. The Division found that the decision on H.’s asylum appeal demonstrates that H. and his family were at risk for a specific reason: their involvement in the murder case. The Division further found that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the author was not involved in that case. Thus, on the basis of the evidence provided to it by the author, the Division found that overall, it could not see why the author would be a target of S. and did not find it reasonable that the author would be at risk. The Division, on its own initiative, sought out evidence to corroborate the author’s claims. However, it found that the “only corroborative evidence” which implied a “specific risk” to the author was the complaint the author had filed with the police on the 7