CAT/C/71/D/866/2018 review of her first asylum application. Therefore, she did not exhaust the available domestic remedies. 4.3 Regarding the merits, the State party relies on the criteria provided in paragraph 49 of the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) and on the Committee’s practice in order to demonstrate that the decisions of national authorities are consistent with article 3 of the Convention. 4.4 Concerning the evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, the State party submits that this condition in itself is not sufficient to conclude that an individual would risk torture upon return to his or her country of origin.20 The risk has to be foreseeable, real and personal.21 The existence of such risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.22 The State party is aware that concerns remain about the human rights situation in Ethiopia and that the use of torture seems to be frequent. 23 It submits that the complainant does not demonstrate how the arrests and detentions mentioned in her communication are similar to her individual situation and why they would imply the existence of a threat to her person. The State party notes that Mr. Gudina and Mr. Tsege are leading figures of political opposition and therefore have a high level of exposure. Their circumstances are in no way comparable to those of the complainant. The complainant fails to evoke elements that are sufficient to conclude that she runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia. The State party also points out that the situation in Ethiopia has evolved in different ways. The state of emergency declared in February 2018 was officially lifted in June 2018, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed concluded a peace treaty with Eritrea and hundreds of political prisoners have been freed, including Mr. Gudina. 4.5 The State party observes that the complainant does not claim to have been subjected to past torture or ill-treatment by the Government of Ethiopia. During the interview of 17 September 2014, she claimed that when her partner had learned that she was a member of Ginbot 7, he had beaten her, threatened her with death and forced her to denounce members of the party. In her request, submitted on 22 July 2015, for review of her asylum application, she claimed that her partner had repeatedly raped her. The complainant’s allegations of illtreatment in Ethiopia did not evolve during the procedure. They are “stereotypical” and lack substance. The complainant provides no evidence from independent sources of the illtreatment she was allegedly subjected to by her partner. 4.6 Concerning the complainant’s engagement in political activities in Ethiopia, the State party submits that during the first asylum proceedings, the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court established that the complainant had not produced credible evidence of her fear of political persecution by Ethiopian authorities. She failed to substantiate her allegations that an arrest warrant had been issued against her, her family had received threats and her brother had been arrested. In its decision of 17 November 2014, upheld by the Federal Administrative Court on 27 April 2015, the Office concluded that her allegations were not supported by real, concrete and detailed elements. Nothing indicates that the complainant had been identified as a political dissident before her departure from Ethiopia. Therefore, there are no reasons to assume that she had been placed under surveillance by the Ethiopian authorities upon her arrival in Switzerland. 4.7 Regarding the political activities of nationals of Ethiopia in Switzerland, the State party recalls previous decisions of the Committee in which the Committee states that political activities in exile are not sufficient to put persons at a substantial risk of torture should they be returned to their country of origin unless they are engaged in ideological and political activities of a profile high enough to attract the attention of Ethiopian authorities. 24 The State party confirms that Ethiopian security services have recently reinforced surveillance of 20 21 22 23 24 6 M.F. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/59/D/658/2015), para. 7.3. N.S. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/44/D/356/2008), para. 7.3; and T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.3. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1 (1997), para. 6; T.Z. v. Switzerland, para. 8.4. R.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/51/D/426/2010), para. 9.6. M.F. v. Switzerland, paras. 7.6 ff.; E.E.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/54/D/491/2012), para. 7.7; R.D. v. Switzerland, para. 9.7; and H.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/49/D/432/2010), para. 7.5.