CAT/C/65/D/765/2016 information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (para. 50). 7.6 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he was repeatedly arrested and detained in Ethiopia due to the political activities of his two brothers and his suspected affiliation with the Oromo Liberation Front, and that he was subjected to beating, ill-treatment and threats during interrogations. It also notes his claim that, if he were returned to Ethiopia, he would face a real risk of torture or ill-treatment from the Ethiopian authorities on account of his political profile and participation in the activities of the Oromo Liberation Front in Switzerland. The Committee further notes that, to support his allegations, the complainant referred to reports of a crackdown on political dissidents and exiled activists, in particular on suspected supporters of the Oromo Liberation Front. He also argued that not only were the leaders or high-profile figures of political movements at risk of being detained, ill-treated or tortured in Ethiopia, but anyone who opposed or was suspected of opposing the current authorities. 7.7 The Committee notes that the State party recognizes the legitimate concern regarding the human rights situation in Ethiopia. In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been arrested, ill-treated and tortured while detained due to his two brothers’ and his suspected affiliation with the Oromo Liberation Front and that, following the conclusion of the national asylum procedure, he submitted letters that confirmed his membership and participation in the activities of the Front. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the complainant did not establish that the illtreatment he suffered amounted to intolerable psychological pressure, nor did he provide a precise description of his activities carried out in support of the Front, or tangible evidence demonstrating that he was actually a member of the movement. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s statements lacked consistency, including with regard to his release despite his alleged involvement in the Front, the absence of claims by him that the activism of his brothers was the cause of his problems, and the time that had elapsed between his first detention in 2008 and his escape in 2011, which, according to the national asylum authorities, undermined the complainant’s credibility. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland were not of a sufficiently high profile for him to be considered as a serious threat to the Government of Ethiopia. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that the Ethiopian authorities monitor opposition members abroad, but observes that he did not elaborate on this claim or present any evidence to support it. Lastly, the Committee notes the recent process of political transition in Ethiopia, including the commitment to respect human rights and ensure accountability for past violations, which may be a sign that the risk of any ill-treatment for returnees to their country of origin has been reduced. 7.8 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant is currently at risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Ethiopia. 18 The Committee notes that the complainant has had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and further details of his claims, including medical certificates or letters of attestation, at the national level to the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, but that the evidence he provided did not allow the national asylum authorities to conclude that his past experiences of arrest and torture would expose him to a risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Ethiopia. The Committee observes that the complainant did not report any irregularities in the national asylum proceedings. The Committee observes that the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence of his work for the Oromo Liberation Front and to adequately substantiate that his participation in political activities in Switzerland would be of enough significance to attract the real interest of the Ethiopian authorities; nor has he submitted any evidence to demonstrate that the Ethiopian authorities are looking for him or that he would face a personal risk of being tortured if he were returned to his country of origin. The Committee is concerned by the past reports of human 18 10 See, for example, G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7.