CAT/C/59/D/610/2014 incoherent, provided vague descriptions and was unable to provide clear answers during the oral hearings. The State party observed that the complainant remained in Bangladesh two years after the alleged land dispute and that, upon his return from Greece and after the police and its Rapid Reaction Battalion came looking for him in his house in 2008, he spent three more years in the country before coming to Sweden in February 2012. 4.8 In summary, the State party submits that there are valid reasons to question the veracity of the complainant’s account of his need for protection. The documentary evidence and the circumstances invoked do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal, and that the complainant’s expulsion to Bangladesh would lead to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.9 Lastly, the State party submits that it is not within its sphere of competence to grant work permits in the present situation and that such competence lies exclusively with the Swedish Migration Board and the migration courts. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 7 October 2015, the complainant submitted a copy of a passport issued by the Embassy of Bangladesh in Sweden to prove his identity. 5.2 On 2 May 2016, the complainant provided his comments to the State party’s observations. He alleges that the decision of the domestic authorities was politically motivated, unsubstantiated and did not take into account the human rights situation in Bangladesh. He states that the reports referred to by the State party provide formal information and differ from the reality. He further states that when he arrived in Sweden he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the torture he was subjected to upon orders of the person with whom he had a land dispute and that his vulnerable condition was not taken into account by the domestic authorities. As for the State party’s argument that he did not mention his political activity and previous torture during the asylum proceedings, the complainant states that it was because he did not understand the interpreter and because, as consequence of his post-traumatic stress disorder and memory loss, he could not follow the questions. He claims that the letters from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s representative and from his father confirm his involvement in politics. The complainant also states that he has been recently operated three times and that the level of his post-traumatic stress disorder has reached the highest threshold. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on this ground. 6.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that if deported to Bangladesh he risks being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention by the Awami League party and a local law enforcement agency. The Committee notes, however, that the complainant’s submission is half a page long and does not provide any detailed information whatsoever about his political activity in Bangladesh, about his previous conviction for 4