CAT/C/59/D/610/2014 torture and rape on 24 November 2005 or about why the law enforcement agency was interested in him. All the documents submitted by the complainant, namely the letters from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party representative, the complainant’s father, his lawyer and the Chair of the National Human Rights Commission, are limited to a statement that the complainant is in danger owing to his political affiliation, without explaining his role in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party or his previous political activities. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee notes, in particular, that the complainant, despite allegations of political persecution in Bangladesh, approached the consulate of Bangladesh in Sweden and received a passport without reporting any problems. The Committee also notes that there is nothing on file to confirm the complainant’s allegations about the previously experienced torture. The complainant has provided no dates, no details and no supporting documents on the matter. From the material before it, the Committee is not able to establish whether the complainant has faced any persecution or ill-treatment in the past, or whether he would be at a personal risk of torture upon returning to Bangladesh. On the basis of the above, the Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims for the purpose of admissibility. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 5