CAT/C/67/D/775/2016 however, it is not bound by such findings. It follows that the Committee will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 19 8.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he fears being arrested upon arrival in Ethiopia and being tortured, given his political involvement with Ginbot 7 and its predecessor, the Kinijit party. It also notes the complainant’s allegations that he was imprisoned in October 2006 and tortured as a result of his activities within the Kinijit party, before being released in February 2007. It further notes the complainant’s claims that he was taken into police custody several times because of his activities within Ginbot 7 and that he left Ethiopia in 2013 for fear of being reported to the police by his supervisor. The Committee notes the complainant’s assertions regarding his continued activities within Ginbot 7 while in Switzerland. It also notes the complainant’s claims that the credibility determination of the Swiss asylum authorities was erroneous because his description of relevant events was detailed and consistent; that the Swiss authorities should have ordered a medical examination for signs of torture, given that he had provided photographs of the scars on his back; that the Ethiopian authorities have declared Ginbot 7 a terrorist organization and target members of dissidents groups; and that he has a sufficiently high profile to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. Lastly, it takes note the various documents that the complainant has provided to substantiate his claims, including medical reports, letters from Ginbot 7 and photographs of his political activities. 8.7 Furthermore, the Committee notes the State party’s position that the complainant’s account of having been imprisoned and tortured was vague and evasive and is therefore not credible. It also notes the State party’s observation that the complainant claimed to have left Ethiopia several times in 2011 with a valid passport and was able to return to that country without encountering problems with the authorities. It further notes the State party’s position that the complainant’s activities in Switzerland do not establish that he would face a risk of torture upon return to Ethiopia. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, conditions for dissidents in Ethiopia have vastly improved since Mr. Ahmed became Prime Minister, in April 2018. In this regard, it also notes the State party’s observation that, in 2018, the Government of Ethiopia lifted the ban on Ginbot 7 and welcomed exiled dissidents back to the country. 8.8 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant would currently face a risk of being subjected to torture in Ethiopia. 20 While noting the complainant’s assertion that he was detained and tortured in that country from late 2006 to early 2007 because of his activities within the Kinijit party, the Committee also notes that the complainant was able to leave and return to Ethiopia safely several times in 2011. The Committee recalls that, when complainants request a medical examination to prove allegations that they have been tortured, such an examination should, in principle, be conducted regardless of the authorities’ assessment of the credibility of the allegation. This ensures that the authorities deciding on a case of forcible return are able to complete the assessment of the risk of torture objectively, based on the results of the medical examination, without any reasonable doubt. 21 However, the Committee also recalls that, although ill-treatment suffered in the past is one element to consider, the principal aim of its assessment is to determine whether the complainant currently runs the risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia.22 In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Committee notes that, approximately 6.5 years elapsed between the time of the alleged torture and the request for the medical examination in 2013, and it does not necessarily follow that, after that period of time, the complainant would still have been at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia. 8.9 Regarding the complainant’s assertion that his activities within Ginbot 7 would place him at risk of being arrested by the secret service upon return and tortured, the Committee observes that, in June 2018, Ginbot 7 announced that it was abandoning its 19 20 21 22 Ibid., para. 50. See, inter alia, G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7. See, inter alia, S.S.B. v. Denmark (CAT/C/60/D/602/2014), para. 8.7. S.S.B. v. Denmark, para. 8.7. 13