CAT/C/71/D/866/2018 Ginbot 7 had been recognized as a terrorist organization in Ethiopia and that the Ethiopian authorities had recently increased surveillance of Ethiopian activists in exile by means of sophisticated software. The Court admitted that Ethiopian nationals who actively engaged in opposition organizations abroad or sympathized with such organizations could be identified and, if returned to Ethiopia, detected upon their arrival. The Court stated however that the Ethiopian intelligence services focused on arresting persons who engaged in protest activities of a certain profile and could be viewed as a real potential threat to the regime. The Court considered that there were no indications that the complainant had attracted the attention of the Ethiopian authorities or could be viewed as a threat to the Ethiopian political system. 2.7 On 14 February 2018, the State Secretariat for Migration informed the complainant that she had to leave Switzerland by 15 March 2018. Complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that by returning her to Ethiopia, the State party would violate article 3 of the Convention. She alleges that in Switzerland she is a leading human rights activist and opponent to the Government of Ethiopia and is viewed as such in Ethiopia. She is affiliated with the highest-ranking members of the most important Ethiopian opposition groups and has been seen with them in public, on television and in photos. 4 Contrary to the findings of the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, her political activities cannot be described as being of low intensity. She has been politically active for years and her profile is high. She has already been targeted by the Ethiopian authorities and is perceived as a concrete threat to the Ethiopian political system. 3.2 The complainant evokes the existence of a consistent pattern of mass use of torture in Ethiopia. She refers to the concerns expressed by the Committee about numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations regarding the routine use of torture in Ethiopia.5 She submits that due to her exposed political profile, her active membership in several opposition groups and the Ethiopian authorities’ “rigour” in suppressing political opposition, the risk for her to be tortured or otherwise ill-treated should she be returned to Ethiopia is real, foreseeable and imminent. She refers to the high political exposure she had already in Ethiopia, which increased in Switzerland. Due to numerous posts and shares on social media, and her broadcasts with leading figures of the opposition on national television, it is inevitable that the Ethiopian authorities have become aware of her political activities and dissent. 3.3 The complainant refers to the jurisprudence of the Federal Administrative Court, according to which the Court has acknowledged that political activities of Ethiopians in exile are monitored and recorded in databases by Ethiopian authorities. 6 The Court accepted that political activists could be arrested if forcibly returned to Ethiopia, unless they clearly distanced themselves from their political views. It also recognized that there was monitoring of activities not only of high-ranking opposition members but also of low-profile activists, and that the Ethiopian authorities would most probably persecute activists who were removed to Ethiopia after seeking asylum abroad.7 Finally, she refers to Federal Administrative Court judgments, dated 17 March 2016 and 13 July 2017, in which the Court stated that the Ethiopian authorities had reinforced surveillance over political activists abroad by means of modern software, that people affiliated with Ginbot 7 and Ethiopian Satellite Television & Radio were targets of regular cyberattacks and that Ethiopian security services believed that persons affiliated with the opposition who were forcibly returned from abroad were opponents of the Government. 3.4 The complainant submits that, if returned to Ethiopia, she would be arrested upon her arrival and detained by the current regime as a dissident. She refers to “numerous stories” of members of the opposition who were arrested upon their arrival to Ethiopia. As an example, 4 5 6 7 4 She claims that her activities have been broadcast on Ethiopian national television and are easily accessible on YouTube and Facebook. The complainant refers to CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, para. 10. Reference is made to judgments adopted by the Court on 3 September 2010, 11 October 2010 and 20 April 2012. Reference is made to a judgment of the Court of 30 November 2007.