CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014 are de facto available to the author.21 The Committee takes note of the author’s submission that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies as the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be appealed. The Committee also notes that the State party has not contested the author’s submission in that regard. 7.4 The Committee also notes that the State party considers that the author’s claim under article 7 should be held inadmissible for lack of substantiation. Nonetheless, the Committee considers that the author has provided sufficient details and documentary evidence for the purpose of admissibility. As no other obstacles to admissibility exist, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his return to Bangladesh would expose him to a risk of torture and persecution on account of his homosexuality. In that connection, the Committee notes that, according to the author, he maintained a homosexual relationship with a friend from July 2010 to July 2011, and that they were caught at a rice field and brought to a village council, where they were beaten and tortured. The Committee also notes that the author was expelled from his family and village and threatened with death if he ever returned, and that when the author’s partner returned to the village to visit his sister, he was tortured and consequently died. The Committee further notes that according to the reports submitted by the author, (a) Bangladeshi law forbids homosexual acts and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals lack protection from the authorities; (b) the police use the law to discriminate and exercise violence against homosexuals; (c) and the law serves as a constant threat even if it is not systematically applied. 8.3 The Committee further notes the author’s submission that in the decision process, the State party’s authorities did not give due weight to the evidence he had provided. In particular, the Committee notes that when the author presented a birth certificate indicating that he was born on 21 December 1994, and was therefore 17 when he arrived in Denmark, the State party questioned the credibility of the author, but did not take any further measures to verify the information provided as to his actual age. The Committee also notes that when the author provided a copy of an article published in the newspaper the Daily Banglar Manush, which made reference to the events that occurred after his homosexual relationship was discovered, the State party first questioned the existence of the referred newspaper and then the genuineness of the article. In the author’s view, the State party did not carry out a thorough evaluation of the facts and documents he submitted. He argues that in its first decision, the Refugee Appeals Board did not assess whether being homosexual would constitute a risk of persecution and that in its second decision, it suggested that the situation of homosexuals had improved in Bangladesh, despite the background information provided to the contrary. 8.4 The Committee also notes the State party’s assessment that the information provided by the author did not enable it to conclude that, even if he were homosexual, he would be at risk of persecution upon his return to Bangladesh; that section 337 of Penal Code 1860 which criminalizes homosexual acts is not applied in practice; and that the situation of homosexuals has improved considerably in recent years. 21 10 See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3.