CAT/C/67/D/775/2016 5.9 In response to the State party’s assertion that the complainant cannot be seen in the video recording of the conference at the Ambassador’s residence, the complainant states that he requested a report from the Geneva police in order to establish his presence at that event. He provides the report, dated 28 January 2019, which states that the police were called by a representative of the Consulate of Ethiopia. The complainant was checked for identification, identified by name and escorted from the Consulate to the train station. The complainant also provides another video recording showing him in front of the Consulate on 6 May 2017. 5.10 Because the complainant was identified by staff of the Consulate of Ethiopia as an opponent of the Government of Ethiopia, the Government would not consider him a lowprofile dissident, as the State party claims. Under article 241 of the Ethiopian Criminal Code, attacking the political territorial integrity of the State is a crime punishable by 10 to 25 years of imprisonment. The complainant cannot expect to be granted amnesty in such a serious situation, even if the political situation in Ethiopia changed in 2018. 5.11 On 22 May 2017, the complainant helped to organize and coordinate a demonstration held in Geneva in front of the United Nations. The protestors opposed the candidacy of Tedros Adhanom for the position of Director General of the World Health Organization, claiming that he was responsible for the deaths of many innocent Ethiopians. 9 Videos of the demonstration have been posted on Facebook. After the event, the complainant was interviewed for approximately 10 minutes by the Swiss radio station Kanal K, a local station in the canton of Aargau. An Amharic-language recording of the interview could be provided upon request. 5.12 On 18 June 2017, the complainant and Mr. Nega attended a Ginbot 7 meeting in Bern. The complainant was in charge of security and wore an orange vest to identify himself. He provides a photo allegedly showing him and Mr. Nega. On 4 November 2017, the complainant attended the ESAT annual party, in Basel, Switzerland, and provides a photo allegedly showing him next to a journalist. 5.13 Moreover, in a ruling on a separate case issued on 30 January 2019, the Federal Administrative Court granted asylum to an Ethiopian complainant, concluding that, despite positive developments in Ethiopia, the extent to which the reform processes initiated by the new Prime Minister would be sustainable was currently not foreseeable and that it was by no means certain that the human rights situation and, thus, the treatment of political opponents and politically active exiled persons in Ethiopia had improved in the long-term.10 The facts of the present case are similar. Both complainants were members of the opposition who were imprisoned and tortured before leaving Ethiopia and who appeared on ESAT while in Switzerland. Thus, the complainant still faces a threat of persecution in Ethiopia. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 In further observations dated 27 November 2017, 15 February 2018 and 7 March 2019, respectively, the State party considered that the first medical report provided by the complainant merely indicated that the complainant had experienced trauma, but did not establish the circumstances of those traumatic events. Trauma is not necessarily caused by acts of torture of ill-treatment. While the complainant’s scars are noted in the first report, indicia of torture can only be established by specialists in forensic medicine. The doctor who authored the first report is a general practitioner and not a specialist or a psychiatrist; thus, the report has limited probative value. The State party reiterates its position concerning the superfluity of performing a medical examination during asylum proceedings in the light of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s narrative. Moreover, even if the scars in question resulted from wounds inflicted by individuals, this would not suffice to indicate proof of ill-treatment by State actors or quasi-State actors. The second medical report submitted only establishes that the complainant endured ill-treatment at an unspecified 9 10 The complainant provides photographs allegedly showing him in front of the protestors. The complainant cites Federal Administrative Court, decisions D-6079/2015 and D-6086/2015, 30 January 2019, para. 7.6. 9