CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014 2.7 The author has not submitted his communication to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that by returning him to Bangladesh, the State party would put him at risk of torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, owing to the risk of persecution he would face there because of his homosexuality. 3.2 The author submits reports on homosexuality in Bangladesh, which indicate that homosexuality is illegal in that country, and that the police use the law to discriminate and exercise violence against, and constantly threaten homosexual persons. 3.3 He considers that he could not avoid persecution through the concealment of his sexual orientation, as that would be incompatible with his rights under the provisions of the Covenant. Finally, the author maintains that the State party’s authorities, including the police and the Immigration Service, did not take into consideration the fact that he was a minor when they initially interviewed him. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 30 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication and requested the Committee to lift the interim measures. It considers that the communication should be held inadmissible, as the author has failed to establish a prima facie case. In that connection, the State party argues that the author has not provided substantial grounds to demonstrate that he would be at risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Bangladesh. The State party also considers that the author has failed to provide specific details about his personal situation; that the Refugee Appeals Board made a thorough assessment of the author’s credibility, of the background information available and of the author’s specific circumstances; and that the national authorities are best placed to assess the facts and credibility in asylum cases.10 The State party further argues that the asylum procedure that has been applied fully complies with the principles of due process.11 4.2 The State party further submits that in case the Committee holds the author’s complaint admissible, it should consider it unsubstantiated, as the author failed to establish that his deportation to Bangladesh would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. In that connection, the State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board generally considers that the conditions for granting a residence permit under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act are met when the relevant asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of being subjected to specific, individual persecution of a certain severity, if returned to his country of origin. When the Board finds that an asylum seeker’s statements on his ethnicity, religion, political views or membership of a particular social group can be found to be facts, but his activities or the measures taken against him in his country of origin do not constitute sufficient grounds for him to fall within the scope of article 1A (2) of the Convention 10 11 4 The State party draws attention to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. See, for example, R.C. v. Sweden (application No. 41827/07), para. 52. The State party further refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee: communication No. 2186/2012, X and X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5. The State party also refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which dealt with the national procedures applied in the author’s asylum case, M.E. v Denmark (application No. 58363/10), para. 63.