movement in Ethiopia. Moreover, the activities that she claimed to have been involved in
Switzerland could not be considered decisive since she allegedly only participated in
meetings on the Internet. Thus, even if it were proved that she had taken part in meetings of
the party, that would not constitute lasting and intense political activity that could be
considered a serious and real threat for the Government of Ethiopia. Therefore, there is no
reason to believe that the complainant would, through the activities in question, have
attracted the attention of the Ethiopian authorities and would, as a result, risk being
subjected to torture if she were to return to the country.
The State party notes the factual inconsistencies in the complainant’s claims. Firstly,
with regard to the arrest of her partner, the author stated at the first hearing that he had been
arrested by three people in civilian clothes and, at the second hearing, that the three officers
were in uniform. In addition, at the first hearing, the complainant said she saw her partner
twice between his arrest and the court hearing that she attended, while, at the second
hearing, she said she had not seen him between the arrest and the court hearing. The
Federal Administrative Court also noted that the complainant, while stating that her partner
had documents that could prove that they were members of Ginbot 7, was not able to say
what those documents were. Furthermore, she said at first that she did not know whether a
second hearing had been held in the trial of her partner because she did not have the right to
contact him. She then stated that the hearing had been cancelled and that she was told of
that by her partner’s counsel. Regarding the first hearing in the trial against her partner, the
author first mentioned that it took place on 15 May 2012, and then said that it was on 8
May 2012.
The State party considers that the complainant’s statements concerning her contacts
with members of her family who remain in Ethiopia are not credible. It believes that it is
not plausible that the author did not inform her partner, who is also the father of her
daughter, of her departure from Ethiopia and that she did not attempt to stay in touch with
him, at least through his lawyer. In addition, she remained very vague about the
circumstances in which she met her partner and about his job, sometimes not responding
clearly to the questions posed.
The State party notes that it is not credible that the complainant cut off all contact
with her mother and a close friend in Ethiopia, as such behaviour would be contrary to logic
and general experience. The State party considers that the argument presented by the
complainant, that she did not want her mother to know where she was living abroad, is not
convincing, since the complainant communicated an address in Switzerland to her friend so
that she could send evidence; for that matter, she never claimed that the police had searched
for her at her mother’s house. Furthermore, the complainant was able to contact a person in
Ethiopia who sent her diplomas and a police summons. After initially indicating that she no
longer had contact with anyone living in Ethiopia, the author admitted having been in
contact with her partner’s sisters. The arrest warrant sent to the address of the
complainant’s partner, which was submitted as the only piece of evidence, can be accorded
no evidential value; it is a copy and no shipping envelope was submitted with it. Moreover,
although the complainant stated at her hearing on 18 June 2012 that she would hand the
document over to the Swiss authorities, she submitted it only two and a half years later, at
the appeal stage before the Federal Administrative Court. Finally, the text of the warrant is
not consistent with the complainant’s statements, as it states that her partner had been
arrested a first time before 2 May 2012, something that she had never mentioned before.
When asked about the contradictions in her statements, the complainant simply
denied that they were inconsistent, without offering any plausible explanation for them. The
complainant therefore failed to demonstrate that she runs a personal, present and serious
risk of being subjected to torture if she were to be deported to Ethiopia. The Federal Office
of Migration noted at the time that it took its decision that there was no civil war or general
state of violence in Ethiopia.
4.10 Finally, the State party submits that the complainant filed medical certificates
concerning her health and that of her daughter. However, she does not claim that her return
to Ethiopia would be contrary to the Convention on account of the state of her health or that
of her daughter. In any event, the question of whether deportation may be imposed, given
the state of health of the author and her daughter was considered in detail by the Swiss


Select target paragraph3