CAT/C/34/D/221/2002 Page 16 violence against prisoners and political opponents. The State party, while conceding the occurrence of police torture and violent clashes between political opponents, nevertheless considers that the higher levels of the judiciary display a significant degree of independence. 8.3 The Committee observes that the main reason the complainant fears to be at personal risk of torture if returned to Bangladesh, is that he was previously subjected to torture by the police, and that he risks detention upon return to Bangladesh, because of criminal charges pending against him. 8.4 The Committee notes that the Swedish immigration authorities have thoroughly evaluated the complainant’s case, and considered whether the complainant risked torture or persecution in Bangladesh; they concluded that he was not at risk. 8.5 With regard to the complainant’s allegations of experienced torture, the Committee considers that while the other medical certificates submitted in this case do not clearly support the complainant’s version, the medical report from Sweden submitted in March 2004, supports Mr. M.M.K.’s contention that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment. The fact that the medical examination took place several years after the alleged incidents of torture and ill-treatment does, in the present case, not allay the importance of this medical report. However, the Committee considers that while it is probable that the author was subjected to torture, the question is whether he risks torture upon return to Bangladesh at present. 8.6 In response to this question, the Committee notes the State party’s contention that since the Awami League is currently in political opposition, the risk of being exposed to harassment on the part of the authorities instigated by members of that party has diminished. The State party further argues that the complainant does not have anything to fear from the political parties now in power, since he is a member of one of the coalition parties. While noting the complainant’s explanation that he supports a fraction of the Jatiya party which is opposed to that part of the party in government, the Committee does not consider that this fact per se justifies the conclusion that the complainant would be at risk of persecution and torture at the hand of supporters of the government fraction of the Jatiya party or the BNP.