CAT/C/59/D/658/2015
authorities3. The Federal Office of Migration noted that numerous medical facilities offer
specialized psychiatric care, as well as medicines, which would be adapted to the needs of
the complainant. With regard to the disorder from which the complainant’s daughter suffers
(significant language delay and suspected autistic tendency), the Federal Office of
Migration noted that there are specialized structures for the care of children with autistic
characteristics, such as the Nehemia Autism Center. Moreover, the authorities stressed that
the complainant had completed nursing training and had practised as a nurse. The
complainant is therefore familiar with the medical environment and is trained to take best
care of her child. Since her mother and her partner’s family are in Ethiopia, the complainant
could also benefit from their support if she returned there. Given all this, the State party
considers that there are no grounds for concluding that the return of the complainant and
her daughter is unreasonable, and invites the Committee to find that the return of the author
would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, and the Rapporteur on new
complaints and interim measures to lift the interim measures.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions
5.1
On 15 February 2016, in response to the comments from the State party, the
complainant recalls that she mentioned the second arrest of 24 May 2012 only at the second
hearing. The complainant submits that the different nature of the two hearings must be
taken into account by the Swiss authorities in assessing the credibility of the account given
by an asylum seeker.4 The first hearing serves only to establish the identity of and the route
taken by the person concerned, who is also invited to briefly state his or her reasons for
leaving. It is true that the complainant did not explicitly mention the arrest of 24 May 2012
during the initial hearing. She gave a general account of her situation. It is in this context
that her answer to the question on the number of days between the event that caused her
departure and her actual departure should be interpreted. She did say that she was
questioned on 17 May 2012 and left the country on 9 June 2012. The fact that she used the
plural in speaking of the “interrogations” at the first hearing highlights the fact that she
underwent several interrogations, during which she was tortured. As the intention is to have
a brief summary hearing, she cannot be reproached for failing to mention the details of the
different questionings.
5.2
Furthermore, the events were traumatic for the complainant: she was repeatedly
insulted and struck by the Ethiopian authorities. It is also clear from medical certificates
that she is suffering from a major depressive episode and has suicidal ideation. Her mental
trauma must be taken into account in assessing the credibility of her account.
5.3
Regarding the number of police officers who interrogated her, it should be recalled
that the complainant has always emphasized that, during the first questioning, she was
arrested by two police officers and questioned by another police officer in the presence of
three other persons. There is thus no contradiction in what she said in respect of the number
of police officers who interrogated her.
5.4
As concerns the complainant’s political activities in Ethiopia, she reiterates that she
was part of a political group whose members are at particular risk. The Ethiopian
Parliament has declared Ginbot 7 to be a terrorist party and its members are therefore
highly likely to be arrested. They are persecuted and arrested on the basis of the AntiTerrorism Act. The simple fact of lending moral support to a person or organization
suspected of terrorism is enough to lead to a long prison sentence. The danger of being a
member of Ginbot 7 is therefore indisputable, and the State party does not question it. The
complainant also states that she did not mention that she was a member of Ginbot 7 at the
first hearing because that was not the direct reason why she fled the country. The
complainant therefore considers that the fact that she referred to her membership of Ginbot
7 only during the second hearing cannot be considered as delayed information. Furthermore,
the complainant also claims that she made specific statements about her membership of the
3
4
GE.17-04946
See Federal Office of Migration decision of 20 October 2014, p. 4; Federal Administrative Court
decision of 12 January 2015, preambular para. 7.3
See, for example, judgment of 18 November 2014 of the European Court of Human Rights, M.A. v.
Switzerland, No. 52589-13, para. 60.
5