CAT/C/67/D/775/2016 4.7 Regarding the complainant’s activities for Ginbot 7, the complainant initially claimed to have met members of his group and carried out activities with them. During his second asylum interview, however, he claimed to have had contact with only one member of Ginbot 7. When asked about this apparent contradiction, the complainant explained that he had been misunderstood during the first asylum interview. However, this explanation is not convincing, given that the complainant expressly stated during the first interview that he had acted with his group in Ginbot 7. 4.8 With respect to his political activities in Switzerland, the State party acknowledges that the Ethiopian authorities have recently increased surveillance of political opponents living abroad. However, those authorities focus their attention on individuals who, beyond participating in low-profile political protests abroad, occupy functions or conduct activities indicating that they are serious, potentially dangerous opponents to the regime. The complainant does not, however, fall into that category of dissidents. His participation in protests in Switzerland constitutes marginal activism and does not indicate that he would be considered by the Ethiopian regime as a serious and potentially dangerous opponent. The photographs that he provided of his participation in protests in Switzerland do not show him in a prominent position and do not provide evidence that he engaged in exposed, personal activism. Apart from the participation in those events and his alleged membership in Ginbot 7, the documents that he provided do not demonstrate that he engaged in any particular political activity. The letter that the complainant provided stating that he is a member of Ginbot 7 is a copy; the complainant did not provide the original document and thus did not prove his membership. 4.9 The complainant referred to jurisprudence of the Federal Administrative Court issued in 2016, noting the increased repression and surveillance of Ethiopian activists belonging to the opposition and living abroad. However, the case at issue in that decision was not comparable to the complainant’s case. In the case decided in 2016, the complainant had plausibly demonstrated that he would attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities as a result of his political activities in Ethiopia prior to his departure. This is not the case in the present communication. 4.10 Throughout the two asylum interviews, the complainant expressed himself in a very superficial and often evasive manner. When asked to describe the persecution that he had endured, he initially stated that his problems had begun in 2004 or 2005, but was unable to specify the problems in question. Invited to describe how his problems had begun, he merely stated that, without being a member of the ruling party, it was not possible to attend school or university, and that approval of the regime was required in order to obtain a work permit. When asked to explain why he stated that his problems had started in 2004 or 2005, the complainant responded that he had become a dissident because he had lost his parents to the regime. This statement does not explain why his problems began in 2004 or 2005, because, as the complainant stated during his first asylum interview, his parents died in 1979 and 1995, respectively. When invited to describe the problems in question, the complainant claimed to have thrown stones and set cars and buses on fire. The interviewer repeated the question concerning the problems that he had encountered. The complainant responded that the elections had started. The interviewer again repeated the same question. The complainant then responded that he hated the political situation, which had caused his parents’ death, and wanted to overturn the regime. It is clear that the complainant was not capable of answering the questions about the problems that he claimed to have encountered. 4.11 Beyond the aforementioned contradictions, the complainant’s account of the arrest of his supervisor was also contradictory. During his first interview, he claimed that one of his friends had been arrested and had disappeared. The complainant claimed that his friend had been beaten in detention and had revealed secrets of their organization. When his supervisor was later arrested, the complainant decided to flee Ethiopia. However, during the second interview, the complainant only stated that one person had been arrested. When asked about this contradiction, the complainant stated that he was not speaking about himself. This appears to have been an attempt to evade the question. The interviewer then repeated the question, asking who exactly had been arrested. The complainant responded that a work colleague had also been detained. Invited to clarify this statement, he added that 6