View Adopted: 2021.07.02
The author of the communication is a national of Bangladesh, and claims that his deportation would violate his rights under articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1) of the Covenant.
The author is a member of the opposition Bangladesh National Party who became an organizing secretary in the party. He claims to be repeatedly attacked, beaten and extorted for money by goons of the Awami League, the party in power. In March 2014, goons from the league attempted to extort one million taka from him and the police arrested him on accusations of anti-government activities due to his involvement in the Bangladesh National Party. In June 2014, the police and rapid action battalion started looking for him under the Special Powers Act on the ground that he was instigating people against the government. Fearing persecution, the author entered Canada on a temporary visa and filed an application for asylum. However, his application was rejected since the author did not prove his organizing secretary position in the Party. The Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board reaffirmed the decision despite new evidence of an attack to his family and rape of his wife. In 2016, the Federal Court denied the author his leave request for judicial review. At the time of the submission, he was not eligible for a pre- removal risk assessment.
Since the Committee fails to see sufficient concrete reasons to assume that a subsequent pre- removal risk assessment would have constituted an effective remedy for the author, hence, it considers that the author exhausted all available remedies in compliance with the Protocol. The Committee considers the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant to be inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. His claims are admissible under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant.
the Committee notes the State party’s position, according to which letters signed by lawyers stating that the author is wanted under the Special Powers Act without court/police case number lacks credibility coupled with the author’s later statement denying any such charge. Further, the author has failed to substantiate that the alleged rape of his wife was carried out by goons of the the Awami League as a reprisal against him. The Committee considers that the author’s arguments on the scrutiny of his case by the State authorities that identified inconsistencies in his account and documentation submitted, and their alleged disregard of the provenance of evidence are not such as to allow for the conclusion that their assessment of the alleged interest of the authorities in him was arbitrary or amounted to denial of justice. Additionally, the State party noted that there is an internal flight alternative for the author in Bangladesh, where his wife and son relocated to face no further incident. The Committee, again, cannot conclude that the State party’s assessment of an internal flight alternative was arbitrary or amounted to denial of justice. In light of the circumstances, the author has failed to show that he would face a personal and real risk of treatment if he were to be removed to Bangladesh. Hence, the Committee concluded that his rights under article 6 (1) and 7 would not be violated.
Deadline is 29th December 202.
By Aakrishti Kumar