CAT/C/35/D/235/2003 Page 9 6.3 The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainant to Bangladesh would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention not to expel or return (‘refouler’) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6.4 The Committee recalls its General Comment on article 3, pursuant to which the Committee must assess whether there are ‘substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of torture’ if returned, and that the risk of torture ‘must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion’. The risk involved need not be ‘highly probable’, but it must be ‘personal and present’. 6 In this regard, in previous decisions the Committee has consistently determined that the risk of torture must be ‘foreseeable, real and personal.’ 7 6.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee has noted the complainant’s submission that he was twice previously tortured in Bangladesh. However, as the State party points out, according to the Committee’s General Comment, previous experience of torture is but one consideration in determining whether a person faces a personal risk of torture upon return to his country of origin; in this regard, the Committee must consider whether or not the torture occurred recently, and in circumstances which are relevant to the prevailing political realities in the country concerned. In the present case, the torture to which the complainant was subjected occurred in 1996 and 1999, which could not be considered recent, as well as in quite different political circumstances, i.e. when the Awami League was in power in Bangladesh and was, according to the complainant, bent on destroying the Freedom Party. 6.6 The Committee has taken note of the submissions regarding the general human rights situation in Bangladesh and the reports that torture is widespread; however, this finding alone does not establish that the complainant himself faces a personal risk of torture if returned to Bangladesh. The Committee observes that the main reasons the complainant fears a personal risk of torture if returned to Bangladesh are that he was previously subjected to torture for his membership in the Freedom Party, and that he risks being imprisoned and tortured upon his return to Bangladesh pursuant to his alleged charges under the Public Safety Act. 6.7 The complainant submits that the Freedom Party remains an enemy of the current government. However, the State party’s information on this issue is to the contrary. The Committee recalls that in accordance with its General Comment No.1,8 it is for the complainant to present an arguable case and to establish that he would be in danger of being tortured and that the grounds for so believing are substantial in the way described, and that such danger is personal and present. In the present case, the Committee is not satisfied by the complainant ’s argument that given current political situation in Bangladesh, he would still be in danger of being tortured merely for being a member of the Freedom Party in a non-prominent position. 6.8 In relation to the charges which the complainant says were filed against him, the Committee has noted both the State Party’s argument that no evidence has been produced in support of this contention, and the complainant’s response that he would 6 General Comment No1, Sixteenth Session (1996). H.K.H. v Sweden, Communication No 204/2002, Views adopted 28 November 2002. 8 General Comment No1, Sixteenth Session (1996). 7