CAT/C/67/D/775/2016 demonstrate that dissident opinions are harshly repressed in Ethiopia and that the complainant faces a real risk of irreparable harm if returned to the country. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 25 April 2017, the State party recognizes that the human rights situation in Ethiopia is worrying in many respects. However, this situation does not in and of itself suffice to establish that the complainant would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Ethiopia. The complainant has not provided evidence to establish such a risk. 4.2 Any past torture endured by the complainant should be considered in assessing the risk of torture that he would face if returned to Ethiopia. However, the complainant’s allegations concerning the ill-treatment that he suffered are not plausible. First, during asylum proceedings, his description of his political activities was very vague and contradictory. As a result, his allegation that he was detained as a result of those activities is also not credible. The complainant’s allegations concerning his detention are contradicted by the fact that, according to his claims during asylum proceedings, he remained in Ethiopia for six years after having been freed without being harassed by the authorities again. Moreover, he claimed to have left Ethiopia several times in 2011 with a valid passport and to have returned to the country without encountering problems with the authorities. Because the origin of the scars on his back is not known, and because his allegations are not credible, the scars do not constitute evidence in support of his claims. 4.3 The State party’s authorities did not order a medical examination for signs of torture because the complainant’s account was manifestly ill founded and incoherent. According to the jurisprudence of the national authorities, asylum seekers must participate in establishing the facts and, in this case, the complainant did not present a medical report supporting his claims. The complainant is represented by a lawyer and is enrolled in a mandatory health insurance policy. He therefore had the opportunity to present a medical report to the Swiss authorities. 4.4 The complainant’s claim that he did not have the opportunity to comment in detail on the ill-treatment that he allegedly suffered is incorrect. After the portion of the asylum interview referred to by the complainant, the interviewer returned to the subject of the complainant’s detention and asked him several questions on this topic. At the end of the hearing, the interviewer expressly invited the complainant to complete his narrative. Moreover, if the complainant believed that he had been unable to provide sufficient detail during the interview, he had the opportunity to do so both in his appeal before the Federal Administrative Court and in the present communication, but he did not take it. His narrative is brief, and he does not attempt to describe the ill-treatment that he allegedly endured or the surrounding circumstances. 4.5 Whereas the complainant claims to have been arrested several times following his release from prison in 2007, he stated during asylum proceedings that he no longer feared the authorities after his release because they did not know where he was hiding. This is a clear inconsistency concerning an essential aspect of the author’s claims. 4.6 The complainant’s description of his political activities in Ethiopia was vague and evasive. When asked to specify the activities that he had conducted for the Kinijit party, the complainant explained that he had participated in numerous demonstrations, mobilized young supporters and led different activities. Such a description is superficial. When asked to describe the structure of the Kinijit party, the complainant initially responded that, when the party was established by Ethiopians living in the United States, he did not know anything about it. Despite being asked several questions on that topic, the complainant was not able to provide a concrete response. He merely stated, when asked about the structure of the party, that an election would take place after the official members arrived from the United States. These imprecise and evasive responses give the strong impression that the complainant did not experience the political activities that he described. While he named the leaders of the party, he was not able to provide a substantive description of the party’s structure or of its activities. 5