CAT/C/59/D/658/2015
movement and her political activities. The complainant further says that she did not
mention her membership of the group to her partner immediately because the secrecy of the
structure prohibited her from doing so.
5.5
Moreover, the State party does not explain that the complainant allegedly was not
aware of the organization of Ginbot 7 at the local level. She gave detailed descriptions of
the meetings with other members of her cell, and provided information on the leader and
the founding of the movement that only a member might know.
5.6
In respect of her political activities in Switzerland, the complainant specified that
she was unable to travel to Ginbot 7 political meetings in Switzerland because she was
alone with her child. She therefore participated in online meetings in order to continue her
political activities for the movement. Whether these activities can be defined as lasting and
intense should be analysed in light of the fact that, according to the Ethiopian authorities,
moral support for a person or an organization suspected of terrorism constitutes a serious
and specific threat. Moreover, it is probable that the complainant’s activities on the Internet
are known to the authorities in Ethiopia. Human Rights Watch has noted that the Ethiopian
authorities monitor Internet activity beyond the country’s borders. In addition to her
membership of Ginbot 7, the complainant is also an active member of the Association of
Ethiopians in Switzerland. She devotes much time and energy to organizing and conducting
demonstrations against the Ethiopian regime. The complainant states that she is very
probably on the blacklist of the Ethiopian Mission in Geneva as an activist against the
Ethiopian regime.5 Her political activities in Switzerland are therefore likely to expose her
to the risk of torture if she were returned to Ethiopia.
5.7
The complainant submits that the factual inconsistencies in some of her statements
arise from the time between the event in question and the second hearing (more than two
years). She also considers that this inconsistency alone cannot justify a conclusion that none
of her claims are credible. She actually described the incident in great detail. With regard to
the number of meetings with her partner between the arrest and the court hearing, the
complainant considers that the only discrepancy in her story is that, at her first hearing, she
said that she had last seen her partner on 15 May 2012 (instead of 8 May 2012) and thus
that she had seen him twice (instead of once) after his arrest. This slight discrepancy is not
enough to conclude that the complainant’s story is implausible. Furthermore, the
complainant said that she had trouble remembering everything because of psychological
problems that she suffers as a result of the traumatic events she experienced.
5.8
In response to the statement that she was unable to describe the documents that the
Ethiopian authorities were looking for, the complainant explained that she had replied that
they were looking for Ginbot 7 documents and the membership list to provide proof that
would incriminate her and her partner. The complainant states that her partner was in
possession of online documents with information on the group’s activities, the programme
of meetings, and the party membership. With regard to the State party’s allegation that the
complainant did not know the date of her partner’s second hearing, she recalls that she has
always said that it had been postponed from the planned date to 22 May 2012 and that she
was unable to attend. That is why she was not sure whether the hearing had taken place or
when.
5.9
In respect of the lack of contact with her partner and the fact that she had not
informed him that she was leaving Ethiopia, the complainant explains that her partner was
imprisoned because of his political activity and that the Ethiopian Government prohibited
him having any contact with the outside world. Consequently, the complainant was not able
to inform him of her departure, which took place in a rush, and she had no opportunity to
speak to her partner or his lawyer. The complainant does, however, claim that she has
maintained contact with her partner’s sisters in case there is any news of him. Regarding
the lack of contact with her mother and her close friend since she left Ethiopia, the
complainant reiterates that the Ethiopian authorities monitor calls that residents make or
receive from abroad, meaning that any call is dangerous, which explains why she had not
contacted her mother. However, the complainant claims to have contacted her close friend
5
6
This allegation was confirmed by the Association of Ethiopians in Switzerland.
GE.17-04946