CAT/C/35/D/235/2003 Page 7 4.9 The State party submits that the complainant in this case bases his claim on the fact that he was twice previously subjected to torture in Bangladesh. It recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that, whilst past torture is one factor to take into account in considering a claim under article 3, the focus of the Committee’s deliberation is whether the complainant would presently be at risk of torture if returned to his home country; past experience of torture does not of itself establish a present risk. 3 Furthermore, the Committee’s General Comment and jurisprudence indicate that past experience of torture is pertinent if it has occurred in the recent past, which is not the case in the present instance. 4 4.10 The complainant resumed his political activities after being released from custody the second time, despite the death threat from the police. He was able to continue his political activities until February 2000. He even felt safe enough to participate in a demonstration that was attacked by the police and members of the Awami League. The State party considers that this is indicative of the fact that the complainant may not have believed himself to be in danger. 4.11 The State party notes that the complainant has not provided any evidence that he is wanted by the authorities in connection with criminal charges under the Public Safety Act, nor was any information presented about the current state of these charges. In any event, the Act has been repealed in April 2002. In view of the government’s information that false accusations tend to be leveled primarily against senior opposition figures, individuals active in politics at the grass-root level may avoid harassment by relocating within the country. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the complainant, the State party considers his claim about pending criminal charges to be unfounded. Even if he did risk detention in connection with criminal charges, this does not demonstrate that there are substantial reasons for believing that he would face a personal risk of torture. 5 4.12 The State party reiterates that the political situation in Bangladesh has changed considerably since the complainant left. According to the complainant, it was the ruling party, the Awami League, which persecuted him, but this party was defeated in the general elections of October 2001. There is nothing to suggest that the complainant has anything to fear from the parties currently in power. Indeed, according to information from the Swedish embassy in Dhaka, the ruling BNP and the Freedom Party are both ‘anti- Awami League’ and on good terms with each other. Accordingly, nothing suggests that the complainant would be in danger of politically motivated persecution which would render him vulnerable to torture. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations: 5.1 In his comments on the State party’s observations dated 26 February 2004, the complainant provides further information about the general human rights situation in Bangladesh. He invokes Amnesty International’s report from 2003, which concludes 3 Reference is made to X, Y and Z v Sweden, Communication No 61/1996, Views adopted on 6 May 1998, para 11.2 4 Reference is made to S.S. v Netherlands, Communication No 191/2001, Views adopted on 5 May 2003, para 6.6 5 Reference is made to I.A.O. v Sweden, Communication No 65/1997, Views adopted on 6 May 1998, para 14.5; and P.Q.L. v Canada, Communication 57/1996, Views adopted on 17 November 1997.