CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014 5.2 On the merits, the author claims that the State party erred in the assessment of his age and that it did not provide him with the assistance he was entitled to as a minor throughout the asylum procedure (such as the appointment of a legal guardian). The author further submits that the State party did not take into account the fact that he was a minor when assessing the facts and his credibility.16 5.3 The author considers that the same attention should be given to the fact that he is a young homosexual man who was ostracized from local society and from his family shortly before his arrival in Denmark. The vulnerability of his situation, which justifies his request for asylum, rests in his youth and the fact that homosexuality is a stigma in his society, family and religion. The Refugee Appeals Board failed to take into account the specific circumstances and vulnerability of the author. He also submits that the State party erred in the conclusion of 19 September 2014 that the newspaper article he had provided was fake: he states that he has a full authentic copy of the newspaper, which has existed since 2005 and is listed on the website of the Bangladesh Digital Media Database as a regional newspaper. The author therefore submits that the State party has not made a thorough evaluation of the facts and the documents in the decision-making process. 5.4 The author also submits that the in its first decision, the Refugee Appeals Board did not consider whether being a homosexual would in itself constitute a risk of persecution if he returned to Bangladesh. Furthermore, in its second decision, the board suggested that the situation of homosexuals in Bangladesh had improved, despite the background information he had submitted to the contrary. He finally submits that the one inconsistent statement that the Board has found, whether it was actually him who was in a café, is likely the result of an error of interpretation and cannot be the basis for rejecting his statement. 5.5 The author also challenges the Board’s conclusion that the situation of homosexuals has improved considerably in recent years in Bangladesh. In that connection, he submits that the United States of America Department of State report on human rights practices for 2013 and the United Kingdom Home Office country of origin information report of 2013 on Bangladesh do not give any basis for such a conclusion. The author further submits that even though section 377 of the Criminal Code is not enforced in practice, the act is still used by the police, together with section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to threaten and harass lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. The use of section 54 does not lead to criminal charges or prosecution but rather to abuses such as extortion and physical assaults, which the victims do not dare to report.17 Finally, the author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in M.I. v. Sweden, where it considered that the deportation to Bangladesh of the author, a homosexual person, would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.18 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 26 February 2016, the State party presented a further submission. It maintains that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under article 7 of the Covenant, and that the communication should be held inadmissible. 6.2 Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party maintains that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the author’s deportation to Bangladesh would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The State party reiterates that there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by 16 17 18 8 See UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, sects. 213-219. See United Kingdom Home Office country of origin information report of 2013. See communication No. 2149/2012, M.I. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 25 July 2013, para. 7.5.