CAT/C/37/D/227/2003 Page 10 in which the execution was planned to take place, shows that it would not have taken place in the humane and dignified way. He refers to a report of the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (the ECRI),8 which in turn refers to the criticism that has been raised against the Swedish authorities for executing expulsion orders without respect for the dignity of the individual involved. 5.2 In addition to already submitted reports on the general human rights situation in Bangladesh, the complainant also invokes an additional Amnesty International report.9 The report concludes that torture has been widespread in Bangladesh for years, that successive governments have not addressed the problem, and that there is a climate of impunity. Court proceedings against a public employee, such as a police officer, are only possible with the government’s agreement, which is rarely forthcoming. The complainant challenges the State party’s assessment that activists at grass roots level are not the subject of false accusations. He also reminds the Committee of the ‘declaration’ made by the People’s Republic of Bangladesh that it would apply paragraph 1 of article 14 of the Convention against Torture ‘in accordance with the existing laws and legislation in the country’. The complainant submits that contrary to the provisions of this article, victims of torture in Bangladesh have not been able to obtain redress and or compensation to which they are entitled. He refers to the enactment of the so-called Joint Drive Indemnity Act that granted immunity from prosecution to military and government officials for the instances of torture that allegedly occurred during the so-called Operation Clean Heart. 5.3 In relation to his personal circumstances, the complainant reiterates that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if he is returned to Bangladesh. Without contesting the statistics presented by the State party (paragraph 4.8 above), the complainant argues that the State party did not show how many of those who applied for asylum where granted asylum or a residence permit as person otherwise in need of protection. He also submits that compared to other categories, the asylum seekers from Bangladesh are very few each year.10 Thus, the experience of the State party’s immigration authorities regarding this category is far less than that concerning other categories of asylum seekers. The complaint further argues that no fundamental changes of the political situation in Bangladesh have taken place. The BFP is a party that in so far as it still exists, is in opposition to the present Government of four-party coalition headed by the BNP. The complainant argues that neither the State party nor its migration authorities contested this fact or his evidence of past torture. He submits that, where it is established that a person has been subjected to torture in the past, there should be a presumption that this person runs a risk of torture in the future, unless circumstances have manifestly changed. The complainant adds that a number of laws in Bangladesh, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Special Powers Act, create conditions that facilitate torture by enabling the police to arrest a person on vaguely formulated grounds, or without charge, and to keep him/her in prolonged detention. While accepting that the Public Safety Act was repealed in April 2001, the complainant argues that 8 Reference is made to the Report of the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance made public on 15 April 2003. 9 Amnesty International, Bangladesh: Urgent need for legal and other reforms to protect human rights (ASA 13/015/2003), published in May 2003. 10 Reference is made to the UNHCR Report of November 2001 ‘Asylum Applications in Industrialized Countries: 1980-1999’.