2.7According to the Swedish local psychiatric service, the complainant displays suicidal tendencies. The medical certificate from the Centrum for Victims of Torture (hereinafter referred to as CTD) states that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and that they found several scars which support the complainant’s account of the torture he claims to have been subjected to. The complaint 3.The complainant claims that if returned to Bangladesh, there are substantial grounds to believe that he would be subjected to torture. He contends that his deportation to Bangladesh would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention. In substantiation of this fear, he invokes the instances of previous detention and torture on account of his political activity in Bangladesh. He further indicates that there exists a consistent pattern of human rights violations by Bangladeshi authorities, in particular against political opponents and persons in detention. The State party’s submission 4.1On 13 May 2002, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. 4.2On the issue of admissibility, the State party notes that all domestic remedies appear to have been exhausted, but that the complainant may lodge a new request for a residence permit with the Aliens Appeals Board at any time. Such a request must be considered by the Board, provided that new circumstances are adduced that would warrant a different decision. 4.3The State party denies that the complainant’s return to Bangladesh would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. While the general human rights situation in Bangladesh is not ideal and there are repeated reports of police torture, the Bangladesh Constitution prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and the judiciary displays a significant degree of independence, having for example criticized the police for abuse of detention laws and powers. 4.4Concerning the complainant’s personal risk of being subjected to torture in Bangladesh, the State party draws attention to the fact that several provisions in the Alien’s Act reflect the principle laid down in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and that the Swedish Immigration authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum as the Committee does under the Convention. That such a test was applied in the present case is illustrated by the fact that the domestic authorities refer to chapter 3, section 3 of the Aliens Act and to article 3 of the Convention. 4.5The State party notes that it is primarily for the complainant to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account.d His credibility is of vital importance to the assessment of an asylum application. The Swedish Immigration authorities held a two hour interview before they made a decision in the present case. Thus the Board had ample time to make important additional observations, which, taken together with the facts and the documentation in the case, ensured that it had a solid basis for making its assessment of the complainant’s need for protection in Sweden. 4.6The State party recalls that although medical certificates establish that the complainant was subjected to torture, the aim of the Committee’s examination of the complaint is to ascertain whether the complainant is at risk of torture upon his return.e 4.7The State party understands the complaint to be founded in particular on the allegation that he risks being tortured upon return as a consequence of the alleged murder charge and the alleged judgement of 3 September 2001. It notes that the only piece of evidence submitted in this regard is a fax allegedly received from his lawyer in Bangladesh. Following a request from the State party, its Embassy in Dhaka commissioned a lawyer to investigate the matter. The lawyer, who examined the registers of all the five Metropolitan and District Sessions Courts of Dhaka, could not find any judgement passed against the complainant during the year 2001 in relation to murder, treason or anti-State activities charges. This was also confirmed by the Embassy of the United States in Bangladesh. 4.8The Embassy also tried to contact the complainant’s lawyer, but was told by an individual claiming to be his brother that he was temporarily out of town. Finally, the Embassy was informed by the house owner that no one with the complainant’s name had lived at the address referred to in the telefax from the complainant’s lawyer. The State party therefore questions the complainant’s account about the murder charge and the judgement on treason and anti State activities. It adds that should such judgement exist, the complainant could appeal against it in a whatsoever higher court. Moreover, the complainant has not submitted any documentation regarding the judgement or the arrest warrant, or the appeal against the judgement, which he claims was filed by his lawyer. 4.9The State party points out that the events that allegedly prompted the complainant’s departure from Bangladesh appear to have been directly linked to his active support of the BNP. It is therefore of vital importance to the assessment of the present case to acknowledge that the BNP has been the ruling party in Bangladesh since 1 October 2001. The State party considers that the shift in political authority implies that there no longer exists a basis for the complainant’s claim that he would risk torture upon his return to Bangladesh and the burden to substantiate his claims now is all the heavier on the complainant.f 4.10The State party adds that the grounds for which the complainant previously was tortured no longer exist, since he first was tortured in 1990 for belonging to an organization to which he does not seem to belong to anymore, and for the other instances for participating in the work of the BNP, which is now the ruling party in Bangladesh. 4.11The State party points to several inconsistencies and shortcomings in the complainant’s account that it considers to be of relevance to the assessment of his credibility. Firstly, during the asylum interview and despite the fact that the complainant was asked to state the reasons for his application, he did not mention that he had been abused by the Bangladesh police until the interviewer brought up the subject of torture and then only on vague and general terms. In particular, although asked by the interviewer whether he had been arrested on other occasions than on 10 November 1998, he did not mention that he had been arrested and tortured in connection with the expulsion from Sweden to Bangladesh in 1995.