CAT/C/71/D/790/2016 torture.4 In 2018, the hostile attitude of the Communist Party of China to religion further increased, conditions for religious freedom worsened and the persecution of groups classified as xie jiao increased, with their members being exposed to torture in detention and inexplicable disappearances.5 The complainant refers to the case of a member of the Church of the Almighty God who had applied for asylum in Switzerland, was detained after her return to China and currently remains in detention.6 7.7 The complainant argues that the State party has not considered the information submitted on the situation of the Church of the Almighty God in China, nor has it examined the risk that the complainant faces in case of return. The complainant refers to two decisions of the State Secretariat for Migration of 27 September 2019 concerning the return to China of members of a domestic church.7 The Federal Administrative Court subsequently referred the cases back to the State Secretariat for Migration, notably because the latter had not established whether the appellants risked being exposed to serious harm on the grounds of having applied for asylum in Switzerland and of possessing an expired Schengen visa, or whether the possibility of the awareness of the appellants’ religious beliefs by the Chinese authorities increased such a risk. The complainant submits that those questions are also relevant to her own case, because she applied for asylum in Switzerland, her visa has expired and the Chinese authorities are certainly aware of her religious and political beliefs. She concludes that the Swiss authorities have failed to sufficiently examine her case. 7.8 The complainant submits that the State party’s observation that she did not claim having been subject to torture or other mistreatment is irrelevant, given that she argues only that there is a risk of being exposed to torture or ill-treatment in case of her return to China. 7.9 According to the complainant, the State party’s statement that her political activities in Switzerland have not necessarily attracted the attention of the Chinese authorities contradicts its statement that she has not exhausted domestic remedies on that point, given that the State party admits that it is relevant to consider the activities and admits that it cannot be excluded that the Chinese authorities know of her political activities. Given the intensity of the surveillance by the Chinese authorities of its nationals, notably in connection with religious activities, the complainant’s activities have certainly attracted their attention.8 7.10 On 20 December 2019, the complainant submitted supplementary comments, referring to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A.A. v. Switzerland, concerning an Afghani applicant whose conversion to Christianity the Federal Administrative Court had deemed credible.9 The complainant notes parallels between that case and her own case, because the State party has not questioned her religious beliefs but has still neglected to examine the risks she would face upon return. It also neglected to consider information on the situation of members of domestic churches in China, notably the Church of the Almighty God, despite the systematic, grave, flagrant and massive violations of the human rights of members of those groups. The State party therefore implicitly requires the complainant to behave discreetly in terms of her beliefs and membership of the church. 7.11 The complainant also refers to a judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 12 November 2019, in which it recognized that a different Chinese appellant had potentially been identified as a member of the Church of the Almighty God during the tenth Geneva 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 The complainant refers to the following reports: United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Annual report 2015: country reports: tier 1 CPCs designated by the State Department and recommended by USCIRF: China”, 30 April 2015; Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2016: China”, 7 March 2016; and Department of State of the United States of America, “2014 Report on International Religious Freedom: China”, 14 October 2015. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Annual report 2019 – tier 1 CPCs designated by the State Department and recommended by USCIRF: China”, April 2019. Human Rights Without Frontiers, “Deported to China by Switzerland, Wang Xiumei is now in prison”, 16 November 2018. Switzerland, State Secretariat for Migration, A. v. SEM (E-6533/2017), judgment of 27 September 2019; and A. v. SEM (E-6525/2017), judgment of 27 September 2019. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Annual Report 2015”. European Court of Human Rights, A.A. v. Switzerland (application No. 32218/17), judgment of 5 November 2019.