CAT/C/58/D/627/2014 complainant, is of great importance in assessing his personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon return. 5.3 The complainant adds that his asylum proceedings in the State party were neither accurate nor comprehensive. He explains that his first interview was very short and related to his registration as an asylum seeker; the second was a proper asylum interview and, according to Swedish asylum case law, it is the only proper opportunity for asylum seekers to present their reasons for seeking asylum; and the third was a short meeting with the reception unit of the Migration Board. He confirms having a legal counsel representing him. However, the State party has failed to mention that the initially appointed counsel at times failed to answer the complainant’s queries, letters and phone calls and even to take action, and as a result new counsel was appointed. Consequently, it is not correct for the State party to maintain that he had an opportunity to submit comments and observations through his assigned counsel. When the new counsel was appointed, within the appeals proceedings the complainant requested the Migration Court to allow an oral hearing in his case, in order to enable him to correct the mistakes committed during the asylum interview; however, his request was rejected by the court on 20 December 2013 and again on 7 February 2014. As to the alleged lack of medical documentation concerning his injuries and state of health, the complainant reiterates that his interests initially were not adequately represented. He further provides transcripts of the asylum interview records to show that he was never properly “encouraged” to submit medical documentation. He states that only after a new counsel was appointed, did he undergo a proper medical examination, as a result of which it was confirmed that his injuries were compatible with the story provided. 5.4 As to the issue of the authenticity of his passport, the complainant maintains that the State party has not presented objective arguments supporting the allegation that the Embassy of Bangladesh would actually issue a passport lacking authenticity without a plausible demonstration of his identity. He notes that since the Migration Board questioned the authenticity of his passport, he has approached the Embassy of Bangladesh in Stockholm in order to obtain new documents to prove his identity. The complainant adds that he does not fear the employees of the Embassy of Bangladesh, but rather the authorities in his home country and that for this reason he has never approached the authorities in Bangladesh. As to the allegedly forged court documents in Bangladesh, the complainant submits that he has contacted his lawyer there and has not received “an acceptable explanation (as) to why the court documents had shown the wrong court etc”. In any event, his lawyer visited the “correct court in 2014 to retrieve proper documents”. According to the retrieved copy of the complaint, a written complaint was submitted to police in Bangladesh by the complainant’s father on 2 March 2005. The complainant contends that he took no part in submitting that complaint as he was at the hospital at the material time, was not aware of his father’s actions and was told that the complaint was submitted after his departure. Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing arguments, the complainant submits that his claim is admissible. 6.1 On 1 February 2016, the State party submitted its further observations. It reiterates its previous arguments that the complaint is inadmissible given that the European Court of Human Rights has assessed the same subject matter of the complainant’s claims that has been raised before the Committee. The complainant’s application submitted to the Court concerned the same person, was based on the same facts and related to the same substantive rights as in the present complaint. 15 15 The State party refers to communication No. 643/2014, U. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, paras. 6.3 and 6.4. 11