CAT/C/71/D/866/2018 she had been convicted in absentia in Ethiopia. Neither does the complainant substantiate her claim that her brother was imprisoned in Ethiopia in relation to her political activities. 8.9 The Committee recalls that when evaluating the risk of violation of article 3 of the Convention, it is pertinent to take into account whether the complainant has engaged in political or other activities within or outside the State concerned that would appear to make the complainant vulnerable to the risk of being subjected to torture were the complainant to be returned to the State in question. 33 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the instances of States parties to the Convention to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine the existence of danger of persecution. It appears from the information available to the Committee that the Swiss authorities took into consideration the evidence provided by the complainant and concluded that she had not been persecuted by Ethiopian authorities before her departure from Ethiopia, that her political activities had begun in Switzerland and that she had not attained a profile high enough to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. In the present case, the Committee observes that the Federal Office for Migration, the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court thoroughly examined the complainant’s claims and the evidence presented by her in support of such claims. While the complainant disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, she has not shown that they were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or that they amounted to a denial of justice. 8.10 The Committee notes that in accordance with article 3 (2) of the Convention, in order to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to another State, the competent authorities are to take into account the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, including harassment and violence against minority groups. 34 The Committee recalls however that the occurrence of human rights violations in a complainant’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that he or she runs a personal risk of torture upon return to that country. Therefore, the mere fact that human rights violations occur in Ethiopia is not in itself sufficient to conclude that the complainant’s removal to that country would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.35 In the present case, the Committee notes that it appears from the case file that the State party’s authorities took into account the relevant background information when examining the complainant’s asylum applications. Regarding the complainant’s assertion that her membership in Ginbot 7 and other opposition organizations and her appearance in television broadcasts by Ethiopian Satellite Television & Radio would place her at risk of being arrested and tortured by the Ethiopian secret services, the Committee takes note of improvements in the human rights situation in Ethiopia since 2018, including the release of political detainees, the decriminalization of opposition movements, the granting of amnesty and the return to the country of exiled members of political opposition groups, journalists and media organizations. In particular, the Committee observes that in 2018, Ginbot 7 was removed from the Government’s list of terrorist organizations; its Secretary-General, Mr. Tsege, was pardoned; its leader, Mr. Nega, returned to Ethiopia after all charges against him had been dropped; and Ethiopian Satellite Television & Radio reopened in Addis Ababa.36 It also takes note of reports that Ginbot 7 dissolved itself to become, in May 2019, part of the political party Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice. 37 On the other hand, the Committee observes that the arrest and detention of high-profile opposition individuals continued to 33 34 35 36 37 General comment No. 4, para. 49 (f). Ibid., para. 43. See the following decisions related to deportation to Ethiopia: H.K. v. Switzerland, para. 7.5; R.D. v. Switzerland, para. 9.7; X. v. Denmark, para. 9.6; E.E.E. v. Switzerland, para. 7.7; M.F. v. Switzerland, para. 7.7; T.Z. v. Switzerland, para. 8.7; and X v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/765/2016), para. 7.8. X v. Switzerland (CAT/C/67/D/775/2016), para. 8.9. See also https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/04/1008312; www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23174&LangID=E; and A/HRC/42/14, paras. 9, 11, 64, 105 and 106. Abdur Rahman Alfa Shaban, “Ethiopia’s Ginbot 7 dissolves, transforms into new ‘united’ party”, Africanews, 10 May 2019; and Morris Kiruga, “Ethiopia opposition leader Berhanu Nega leads new party”, The Africa Report, 14 May 2019. 11