CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 day she left Bangladesh for Canada. The Division attached very little probative value to that document for the reasons stated above.9 In reaching its conclusion that the author’s claim was untrue and amounted to an effort to be allowed to live in Canada with her daughter, the Division had had the benefit of observing the author first-hand, hearing her oral testimony and questioning her. 6.11 Further evidence suggests that the author lacks credibility. For example, at the Refugee Protection Division hearing and in her communication, the author claimed that her mother had died in May 2011 “from anxieties brought on by the death threats”. However, in her PRRA application, completed on 31 March 2014, the author listed her mother as alive and residing in Bangladesh. In addition, and also on the basis of the author’s PRRA application, it appears that the author’s son, who had previously resided in London and who, according to the author’s communication, had applied for refugee status in the United Kingdom, had returned to Bangladesh. The author had relied on her son’s asylum claim as evidence that her family was fleeing Bangladesh. Her failure to bring this change in circumstances to the Committee’s attention is therefore of concern. Moreover, the hearing and decision on the United Kingdom asylum appeal of the author’s nephew H. took place on 23 November 2012, just under three months before the author’s own protection hearing, which took place on 14 February 2013. However, there is no mention in the United Kingdom decision of the author’s claims that S. had tried to have the Government of Bangladesh interfere in the convictions and sentences of B., K.S. and P., or that the three individuals had been released from prison. It is difficult to accept that H., whose initial asylum claim was rejected, would not have referred to these facts, given that, if true, they would have strengthened his case on appeal. 6.12 Concerning the author’s allegations that the human rights situation in Bangladesh is worsening, the State party submits that the material the author presents is similar (and in some cases, identical) to that which was presented to and considered by the Refugee Protection Division and the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer. Both the Division and the officer specifically acknowledged the material and the Division, in particular, found that corruption was rampant in Bangladesh. Thus, the human rights situation in Bangladesh, as perceived by the author, has been thoroughly assessed by domestic decision makers. 6.13 A review of previous as well as more recent reports from the same agencies relied on by the author (as well as country reports by the Government of the United Kingdom, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) would suggest that the human rights situation in Bangladesh has not worsened; it has either stayed the same or improved slightly in some areas. Moreover, the author has not provided any evidence to demonstrate how any general level of risk relates to her personal circumstances. She has not substantiated her allegation that the current Awami League Government has interfered or will interfere with the outcome of the murder trial or has released or will release the murderers. 6.14 The author does not provide any evidence to support her claims that the “agents of persecution” who murdered her brother have significant judicial and political contacts, nor has she provided evidence demonstrating that any individuals have used their alleged contacts to influence the outcome of the murder trial. Indeed, the evidence presented by the author at her protection hearing suggests the opposite: as noted by the Refugee Protection Division, her evidence established that the police in Bangladesh are clearly willing to arrest and charge a captain in the army (K.S.). In addition, it is also clear from the author’s communication that the police are willing to arrest and charge a police inspector (P.) as well as a person who has one brother who is a police inspector and another brother who is an army captain (B.) It is also clear from the author’s communication that the judiciary of 9 8 See para. 6.7.