CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014 Immigration Service and the Board found the author’s homosexuality suspicious, they did not take into account the author’s allegations that (a) he and his partner were tortured and expelled from their village upon discovery of their homosexual relationship; (b) he was told that he would be killed if he tried to come back to the village and his family; (c) his partner was tortured and consequently died when he tried to return to their village for a visit; and (d) no protection could be expected from the national authorities against this form of repression of homosexuality, which is widely practised in Bangladesh. In the same way, the State party did not take into account the information provided by the author, according to which homosexuality is stigmatized in Bangladesh and remains criminalized by section 377 of the Criminal Code, which in itself constitutes an obstacle to the investigation and sanction of acts of persecution against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. In addition, the Committee notes that the author is Muslim, and that at the date of the present decision, such people in Bangladesh are frequently the victims of threats of violence, particularly after homophobic public comments by Islamic leaders. In view of the above, the Committee considers that, when assessing the risk faced by the author, the State party failed to take adequately into account his version of the events he faced in Bangladesh, the documents he provided and the available background information about the risks faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Bangladesh, thereby arbitrarily dismissing the author’s claims.27 In such circumstances, the Committee considers that the author’s deportation to Bangladesh would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4), of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that deportation to Bangladesh would, if implemented, violate the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to proceed to a review of the author’s claim, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant and the Committee’s present Views. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author while his request for asylum is being reconsidered. 11. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee’s Views. 27 12 See the notion of arbitrariness in the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 12.