CAT/C/65/D/765/2016
4.10 The complainant had many opportunities to provide the State party with evidence
and details of his political activities. However, the evidence that he filed did not allow the
Federal Administrative Court to conclude that his political activities were of sufficient
importance to expose him to a substantial risk of being subjected to torture upon his return
to Ethiopia. The mere participation of the complainant in demonstrations and gatherings of
the Oromo movement while in exile, as far as it is proven, is not a political activity of
sufficient importance and nature to represent a serious and concrete threat to the
Government of Ethiopia.11 The State party therefore submits that the evidence adduced by
the complainant before the Committee does not demonstrate any type of behaviour in exile
that may be of particular concern to the Ethiopian authorities. It holds that the
complainant’s political activities in Switzerland would not expose him to a risk of torture if
he were returned to Ethiopia.
4.11 With regard to the factual inconsistencies and credibility of the complaint, the State
party submits that an allegation is insufficiently substantiated when precise details are
lacking, which may instead prove that the complainant did not experience the events as
described. Similarly, it considers an allegation implausible when, on an essential point, it is
contrary to logic or general experience. The State party does not believe that the
complainant’s allegations are credible for the following reasons. He, for example, alleges
that he fled Ethiopia after hearing, the day after his last arrest and release, that two people
to whom he allegedly delivered goods for Mr. Shibo had been arrested. The complainant
feared that those two people would make false statements against him. He does not claim,
however, that the authorities sought him at his home after he left the country. On the other
hand, he indicates that his brother has encountered financial problems since his departure,
such as being obliged to pay heavy tax despite the closure of his butcher’s shop. However,
his brother does not appear to have faced any other problems, and the complainant’s
explanation of the financial problems experienced by his brother since his departure was
evasive. It did not lead to the conclusion that the authorities would have had new reason to
believe that the complainant was involved in the activities of the Oromo Liberation Front or
that he would be actively sought. The complainant therefore has not credibly established
the circumstances in which he left Ethiopia.
4.12 In conclusion, the State party considers that the complainant failed to establish any
serious grounds to prove that he would face a real and personal risk of torture in the event
of his removal to Ethiopia. Accordingly, it invites the Committee to declare that the
complainant’s removal to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of its obligations under
article 3 of the Convention.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 26 June 2017, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s
observations.
5.2
He initially points out that the State party has acknowledged that the human rights
situation in Ethiopia is worrying and that the use of torture has been frequent, in particular
against political opponents or persons affiliated with violent separatist groups, such as the
Oromo Liberation Front. The complainant objects to the State party’s assertion that he has
not provided any evidence to suggest that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal
risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Ethiopia. As submitted in the original
communication, the complainant considers that his political activities in Ethiopia and
Switzerland are of sufficient significance to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities,
thereby exposing him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if
he were returned to Ethiopia.
5.3
The complainant further objects to the State party’s claim that the torture and illtreatment that he suffered in the past, as described during the hearings before the Federal
Office for Migration and the appeal procedure before the Federal Administrative Court, was
not of sufficient severity to have particularly affected him. The complainant also objects to
11
6
See, for example, M.F. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/59/D/658/2015), para. 7.6.