CAT/C/71/D/866/2018
a copy contributed to the existing doubts about her credibility. Regarding the evidence of her
membership in Ginbot 7, the Court ruled that its probative value had to be “strongly
relativized”. It noted that, according to some of the documents, the complainant had applied
for membership in Ginbot 7 when she was already in Switzerland, and as at 23 September
2014, she had yet to take several of the steps required to become a member. Another
document stated that she had been a member of Ginbot 7 since 18 August 2014, but it also
indicated that the complainant resided in Basel, whereas she had claimed that she had entered
Switzerland on 4 September 2014.
2.4
On 22 July 2015,2 the complainant applied for re-examination of the Federal Office
for Migration’s decision of 17 November 2014, claiming that she had not disclosed important
reasons for her departure from Ethiopia. She declared that her boyfriend had repeatedly raped
her after learning that she was a member of Ginbot 7. She also claimed that since her
departure from Ethiopia, she had been convicted by a first instance court, that she risked
arrest upon arrival to Ethiopia and that her ex-boyfriend, who still worked for the intelligence
services, would immediately find her. She further referred to ill-treatment by her employer
in Dubai and produced a medical certificate according to which she suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder. On 18 September 2015, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected
the application, concluding that the alleged rape was claimed to have been perpetrated in the
context of the complainant’s argument with her boyfriend, which, according to the previous
assessment by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, lacked
credibility, and that the alleged ill-treatment in Dubai was irrelevant to the asylum application.
2.5
On 11 January 2016,3 the complainant filed a new asylum application claiming a risk
of persecution by Ethiopian authorities due to her political activities in exile. On 20 January
2016, the State Secretariat for Migration concluded that the new application had little chance
of succeeding because the complainant had previously failed to prove a risk of persecution
in Ethiopia, because it did not appear from the new application that her political activities in
exile had received high exposure and because there were doubts about the authenticity of her
political engagement, which had begun after her first asylum application had been rejected.
The State Secretariat therefore requested the complainant to advance a fee of SwF 600 for
the application to be processed. On 11 February 2016, it declared the application inadmissible
due to the complainant’s failure to advance the fee. On 24 February 2016, the Federal
Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s appeal against the State Secretariat’s
decisions of 20 January 2016 and 11 February 2016. However, on 15 March 2016, the Court
quashed its judgment of 24 February 2016 and the Secretariat’s decision of 11 February 2016
because the complainant had produced proof of payment of the fee.
2.6
On 13 April 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration dismissed the complainant’s
second application for asylum. It stated that Ethiopian authorities were only interested in
monitoring the exile activities of persons who were perceived as a threat to the Ethiopian
political system. Due to the complainant’s failure to prove persecution by Ethiopian
authorities in the first asylum proceedings, the State Secretariat concluded that there was no
reason to believe that she had been placed under surveillance upon her arrival in Switzerland.
Neither did the State Secretariat find indications that the complainant’s political activities in
exile had attracted the attention of the Ethiopian intelligence service. It considered that the
complainant’s activities were of relatively low importance and expressed doubts about the
authenticity of her engagement. Concerning her alleged membership in Ginbot 7, the State
Secretariat concluded that the complainant did not occupy any important position within the
organization and that a letter attesting to her membership was a standard letter where her
name had simply been inserted. On 8 February 2018, the Federal Administrative Court
upheld the State Secretariat’s decision of 13 April 2016. The Court acknowledged that the
political and human rights situation in Ethiopia had deteriorated in recent years, that persons
suspected of critical attitudes towards the Ethiopian regime were threatened with arrest and
that some had been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. It also noted that in 2011,
2
3
The complainant and the State party indicate that the application was lodged on 22 July 2015.
However, the State Secretariat for Migration, in its decision of 18 September 2015, refers to an
application dated 23 July 2015.
On 8 January 2016, according to the decisions of the Federal Administrative Court of 24 February
2016 and 15 March 2016.
3