CAT/C/65/D/765/2016
lasted for 25 days. The State party claims that, according to his statements, the complainant
never directly contributed to the activities of the movement and only contributed to
“unspecified activities” through an intermediary, Mr. Shibo, who was the focus of the
investigation by the Ethiopian authorities as he was suspected of being in contact with a
prominent member of the Oromo Liberation Front. The complainant was released from
detention each time following the provision of adequate guarantees, denying any links with
the Front. The State party observes that only the complainant’s first detention period in
2008 lasted for several weeks, and that he left Ethiopia in 2011. Moreover, the complainant
has alleged that two of his older brothers were active within the Oromo Liberation Front;
one was a passive sympathizer of the movement and the other belonged to its ranks. The
older brother, whose role was to promote the party line and recruit new members, died in
1995, several months after his release from prison where he had suffered ill-treatment. The
State party submits that the complainant’s brothers were involved in the movement some 20
years ago, therefore their involvement would not expose the complainant to a foreseeable
risk of ill-treatment if he were deported to Ethiopia.
4.7
The State party claims that the authorities would not have released the complainant
if they had suspected that, due to his family ties, he was personally involved in the Oromo
Liberation Front. Moreover, during the hearings, the complainant did not mention the
political activism of his brothers as the source of his problems, but only referred to it in
order to explain the reasons for which Mr. Shibo had decided to entrust him with delivering
goods. The complainant also confessed that, apart from his deceased brothers, no one in his
family was active in the Oromo Liberation Front. The State party therefore claims that there
is nothing on file that would allow it to conclude that the complainant was wanted by the
authorities when he decided to leave Ethiopia. He did not mention any legal proceedings or
an arrest warrant against him. The complainant has not shown that he has a profile that
could attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities.
4.8
With regard to the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, the State party
recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, submitting that any political activity carried out in
exile is not sufficient to confirm the existence of a substantial risk that the individual
concerned would be subjected to torture if returned to his or her country of origin. Such a
risk is only substantiated if the individual has engaged in ideological and political activity
of a particular nature, which is likely to attract the attention of the authorities in the country
of origin. In his submission to the Committee, the complainant alleges that he is currently
an active member of the Oromo Liberation Front and the Oromo community in Switzerland,
and he has participated in many events and meetings. To support his allegations, he submits
three letters to prove his membership of the Front and the Oromo community, and several
photographs.
4.9
With reference to the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court, the State party
claims that the complainant has not clearly shown his involvement in political activity of
sufficient importance to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. Although it is
confirmed in the letter dated 7 July 2014 that the complainant is an active member of the
Oromo community, there is no indication of the activities that he may have carried out as a
member of that community. According to the letter dated 7 June 2014, the complainant is a
sympathizer of the Oromo Liberation Front and has taken part in its demonstrations,
although there is no indication of the activities that he has carried out, and therefore that
cannot be considered to have decisive probative value either. The State party submits that
the letter dated 7 June 2014 does not provide any sources to indicate that the complainant
would be identified by the Ethiopian authorities, nor does it provide any concrete evidence
for such a conclusion. Moreover, the photographs do not show the complainant as a leader
or a person whose activities would lead to his investigation by the Ethiopian authorities.
Lastly, the letter to prove his membership of the Oromo Liberation Front dated 8 August
2016 was issued after the Federal Administration Court had terminated the proceedings on
13 July 2016, therefore it could not be considered. The final letter indicates that the
complainant is currently an active member of the Oromo Liberation Front, which had not
been indicated previously. However, there is no mention of any concrete activities that
would make the complainant particularly identifiable.
5