2.8On 4 March 2003, the complainant was arrested after being reported to the police for setting fire to a psychiatric clinic where he had sought treatment. On the morning of 7 March 2003, the complaint was received by the Committee. Later on 7 March 2003, counsel advised that the complainant had been removed from Sweden that same afternoon, and allegedly without medication for mental health problems nor his clothes. She alleged that the previous evening the complainant had sought to cut himself with a plastic knife. The complaint 3.1The complainant claims he would be tortured in the event of return, and that his return would violate articles 2, 3 and 16 of the Convention. He claims that he would be arrested upon return to face protracted legal proceedings, and that this was not affected by the change of government, especially as no amnesty had been issued. The complainant cites the 2001 human rights report of the United States’ State Department, unspecified Amnesty International reports and a recent Swedish Foreign Office report, all on the general human rights situation in Bangladesh, as support for the proposition that the police routinely resorts to torture in investigations, with impunity, and that thus he would be exposed to a “very high risk” of torture in the event of return and arrest. Only exceptionally, he claims, are police officers sanctioned for use of torture. As evidence for the “almost total impunity” enjoyed by police officers and the country’s alleged unwillingness to respect its obligations under the Convention, he refers to an indemnity ordinance issued in respect of acts committed by the armed forces between 16 October [presumably 2002] and 24 January 2003. 3.2The complainant also argues that his removal from Sweden in the circumstances described in paragraph 2.8 above violated article 16 of the Convention. 3.3The complainant states that the same matter has not been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1By letter of 12 May 2003, the State party contested the admissibility and merits of the complaint. While conceding domestic remedies had been exhausted, it argues that, in the light of its submissions on the merits, the complainant has not substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under article 3. As to the claim that his expulsion in addition would violate articles 2 and 16, the State party notes that article 2 requires a State party to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture, and that an expulsion cannot be considered an act which intentionally causes pain or suffering of such severity so as to bring it within the definition of torture contained in article 1, for one of the purposes enumerated there. This claim is thus incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, is insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and the complainant does not have the necessary victim status to bring this claim. As to article 16, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that the obligation of non-refoulement does not extend to situations where a risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment may exist,a and therefore considers this claim incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.2As to the separate claim that the specific circumstances of the complainant’s expulsion violated article 16 in view of his physical and mental condition, the State party refers to academic commentary that the purpose of this article is to protect persons deprived of their liberty or under factual power or control of the person responsible for treatment or punishment. As the complainant cannot be a victim in this sense, the article is inapplicable. Moreover, for the reasons developed below, this claim is also insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility. 4.3On the merits, the State party argues that, in the light of the general human rights situation in Bangladesh and the evidence advanced, the complainant failed to make out a personal and substantial risk of torture, as defined in article 1, which would render his expulsion contrary to article 3. As to the general situation, the State party concedes that it is problematic, but points to progressive improvement over a longer term. Following the introduction of democratic rule in 1991, no systematic oppression of dissidents has been reported, and human rights groups are generally permitted to conduct their activities. The Bangladesh National Party (BNP) returned to power (after holding power from 1991 to 1996 and being in opposition from 1996 to 2001, to the Awami League) following elections on 1 October 2001 declared free and fair. Violence is however a pervasive element in political life, with supporters of different parties clashing at rallies and police reportedly often engaging in arbitrary arrest and abuse during interrogations. Acts of torture are seldom investigated, and the police, whose members are allegedly utilized by the Government for political purposes, are reluctant to pursue investigations against persons affiliated with Government. While lower courts are susceptible to executive pressure, higher courts are by and large independent and rule against the Government in high profile cases. Persons are occasionally tried in absentia, though no right of retrial exists if the person returns. 4.4In 2002, members of the State party’s Aliens Appeals Board visited Bangladesh, meeting with advocates, members of Parliament and the Executive, representatives of local embassies and international organizations, and found no institutional persecution. While “high profile” persons may be arrested and harassed by the police, political persecution is rare at the grass roots level. Court cases based on false accusations are common, but directed primarily against senior party officials. Harassment can be avoided by internal relocation within the country. The State party points out Bangladesh is a party to the Convention and, since 2001, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 4.5Turning to the real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture which the complainant is required to face under article 3 in the event of a return, the State party points out that its authorities explicitly applied the relevant Convention provisions. In addition, the competent authorities are in an advantageous position in assessing applications, particularly in the light of the experience gained in granting 629 cases on article 3 grounds in 1,427 cases from Bangladesh over a 10-year period. Accordingly, weight should be given to the decisions of the Immigration and Aliens Appeals Boards, whose reasoning the State party adopts. The State party emphasizes, with reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, that past torture is not sufficient, of itself, to determine a risk of future torture contrary to article 3.