CAT/C/46/D/338/2008 be in danger of being subjected to torture after his return to that country; specific grounds must exist indicating that he would be personally at risk.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he is at a particular risk of torture in Bangladesh due to his religion and sexual orientation. The State party argued that any persecution of Hindu people on religious grounds that may occur does not emanate from the State and noted that the complainant did not submit any documents supporting his claim. As for his sexual orientation, the State party acknowledged that homosexual acts are illegal under the Penal Code and 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. 7.4 Concerning the fatwa issued against the complainant because of his sexual orientation, the Committee considers that the State party’s argument that the complainant did not know to what extent the poster with the fatwa had been spread within Bangladesh, and that it may only have been of a local character, is unjustified as it would be impossible for the complainant to prove the contrary given that he is outside the country, it would be impossible for him to prove the contrary. Furthermore, the notion of “local danger” does not provide for measurable criteria and is not sufficient to dissipate totally the personal danger of being tortured. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant does not appear to be of interest to Islamic fundamentalists, considering the time that has elapsed since he left Bangladesh, however it considers that the State party did not provide sufficient argument on how lapse of time has diminished the risk of persecution based on the complainant’s sexual orientation. 7.5 As for the complainant’s arguments that he will be persecuted because of his past political activities, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the BNP is no longer the ruling party in Bangladesh and does not have the same position as it did when the complainant left Bangladesh. The Committee however notes that the political situation in Bangladesh remains unstable with violence and rivalry among various political parties and there continues to be many instances of violence based on political beliefs. The Committee also notes that the State party did not question that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, albeit that in the State party’s view this was an isolated act. Furthermore, the State party acknowledged that torture is still practiced in Bangladesh and that those responsible are rarely punished. 7.6 As for the medical documentation submitted by the complainant regarding the consequences of past torture, while recalling its jurisprudence4 that 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, the Committee notes that the medical reports confirm a causal link between the complainant's bodily injuries, his current psychological state and the ill-treatment he suffered in 2004. 7.7 In light of the arguments provided above, and in particular the findings in the medical report, the complainant’s political activities in the past and the risk of persecution on the basis of his homosexuality combined with the fact that he belongs to a minority Hindu group, the Committee considers that the complainant has provided sufficient evidence to show that he personally runs a real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture were he to be returned to his country of origin. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the expulsion of the complainant to Bangladesh would constitute a violation of the State party's obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 3 4 10 MAK v. Germany, 214/2002. Views adopted 5 May 2004. M.S.H. v. Sweden 235/2003. Views adopted on 14 November 2005.