can entail imprisonment for life in Bangladesh. In this regard, the Committee notes that the State party’s argument that Bangladeshi authorities are not actively persecuting homosexuals does not rule out that such prosecution can occur”, (para. 7.3); in light of, inter alia, “the risk of persecution on the basis of his homosexuality” (para. 7.7) the Committee found that, “the expulsion of the complainant to Bangladesh would constitute a violation of the State party's obligations under article 3 of the Convention”, (para. 7.7)]. (4) Paragraph 30(f) 75. The current wording of paragraph 30(f) could be understood as suggesting that corporal punishment may or may not amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, whereas clearly all corporal punishment amounts to at least cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and in some cases to torture.114 Recommended textual changes to paragraph 30(f) “… if involuntarily transferred deported to a State, in which, although corporal punishment is permitted by national law, in view of the fact that such punishment would amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…” (5) Paragraphs 30(i)-(j) 76. Paragraphs 30(i)-30(j) refer to provisions of the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture and other illtreatment in non-international armed conflicts and to prohibitions applicable in international armed conflicts. However, they omit to refer to provisions prohibiting torture and other ill-treatment in international armed conflicts, including the Geneva Conventions’ “grave breaches” provisions. Recommended textual change: Add sub-paragraph 30(h)(iii) as follows: “Articles 12 and 50 of the First Geneva Convention; Articles 12 and 51 of the Second Geneva Convention; Articles 17, 87 and 130 of the Third Geneva Convention; Articles 32 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” (6) Paragraph 30(k) 77. The relevant language in the first sentence of paragraph 30(k) – i.e., “…where the death penalty is in force and considered as a form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the deporting State party” – may inadvertently have the effect of narrowing the applicability of the considerations detailed further in paragraph 30(k), whereas these considerations should be taken into account by a broader range of prospective deporting State parties as indicated in the proposed textual changes below. Recommended textual change: 114 See for instance CAT, Concluding Observations: Namibia, UN Doc. A/52/44, 10 Sept. 1997, para. 250; CAT, Concluding Observations: Saudi Arabia, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/28/5, 12 June 2002, para. 8(b); HRC, General Comment 20, Article 7 (Forty-fourth session, 1992), UN Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1,30, para. 5; HRC, Osbourne v. Jamaica, UN Doc. CCPR/C/68/D/759/1997, 13 Apr. 2000, para. 3.3. 33 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017