CAT/C/35/D/235/2003 Page 6 4.4 On 19 December 2001, the Migration Board dismissed his application for asylum, noting that the political situation in the country had changed, and that the Awami League was no longer in power. The Board found that he was not entitled to asylum as a refugee or to a residence permit as a person otherwise in need of protection. The complainant’s appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board was rejected on 6 March 2003. 4.5 The State party acknowledges that all domestic remedies are exhausted. However, it contends that the communication should be considered inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, on the basis that the complainant’s submission that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Bangladesh fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility, and is therefore manifestly unfounded. 1 4.6 On the merits, the State party submits that the question is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he is being returned. 2 It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of human rights violations in a country does not as such constitute sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 4.7 In relation to the general human rights situation in Bangladesh, the State party notes that, whilst problematic, the situation has improved. Violence remains a pervasive element in the country’s politics, and supporters of different parties frequently clash with each other and with police during rallies. The police reportedly use torture, beatings and other forms of abuse while interrogating suspects. The government often uses the police for political purposes – thus several members of the Awami League have been detained. But when members of the Swedish Aliens Appeals Board conducted a study tour to Bangladesh in October 2002, they concluded that there was no institutionalized persecution in Bangladesh, and that persecution for political reasons was rare at the grass roots level. Those most at risk of harassment were opposition politicians and party me mbers in leading positions. In any event, the State party emphasizes that the crucial factor in this case is that the Awami League is no longer in power. 4.8 On the complainant’s personal circumstances, the State party submits that Swedish asylum law reflects the principles contained in article 3 of the Convention, and that Swedish authorities apply the same test when considering an application for asylum as that applied by the Committee in considering a complaint under the Convention. The authorities have considerable experience in dealing with asylum claims from Bangladesh and in assessing whether a person deserves protection, having regard to the risk of torture and other ill treatment. Between 1990 and 2002 it dealt with over 1700 such applications, and over 700 were granted. For the State party, considerable weight should be attached to the opinions of its immigration authorities, which in the present instance found no reason to conclude that the complainant should be granted asylum. 1 Reference is made to H.I.A. v Sweden, Communication No 216/2002, Views adopted 2 May 2003, para 6.2 2 Reference is made to is made to S.L. v Sweden, Communication No 150/1999, Views adopted 11 May 2001, para 6.3.