CAT/C/65/D/765/2016 the claim that his allegations of being subjected to torture while in detention were a mere statement without the support of concrete evidence. 5.4 The complainant claims that it is an undisputed fact that he was arrested on four occasions between 2008 and 2011.12 Being hit with sticks and dazzled, handcuffed, threatened with death and forced to lie on the ground goes well beyond a simple physical reprimand. Taking into account the number of times he faced such acts of violence, the complainant cannot understand why the first instance asylum authorities did not believe that they were serious enough to particularly affect him. In that context, he refers to the case law on the application of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, according to which once any suffering inflicted has reached a certain level of severity, it must be examined in its entirety. He adds that the criteria for describing suffering as “serious” should include: the duration of the attack, the physical and psychological effects on the victim and on his or her health, the purpose of the attack and the intention of the officers, and the circumstances in which it took place. The complainant recalls that he was arrested four times and subjected to several physical examinations during several interrogations, which can be qualified, as a whole, as a longterm matter. Although the complainant does not carry physical scars, the short-term effects, such as the temporary loss of sight due to glare, should not be forgotten. The purpose of the attacks was to force the complainant to make a false confession, which is absolutely prohibited and a strong indication of torture. Since he is of Oromo ethnicity, and he was suspected of being part of a separatist movement, the intention of the officers was also to make him suffer. The fact that the repeated attacks against him took place while he was a detainee is a further indication that he was tortured. In any event, he was exposed to illtreatment that was serious enough to significantly affect him. Referring to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the complainant claims that the death threats that he received amounted to inhuman treatment. 5.5 With regard to the State party’s argument that the complainant was released each time following the provision of adequate guarantees and that he did not have restrictions placed on him, although he had to report regularly to the police, the complainant claims that his freedom of movement was restricted, since he did not have the right to leave Dembi Dolo and was obliged to limit his professional activity to a specific area. He was also afraid to resume making deliveries for Mr. Shibo, in the light of his arrest, and he was therefore forced to limit his work also on a personal level. Such restrictions amounted to genuine psychological pressure as they lasted over several years. 5.6 With regard to his political activities in Ethiopia, the complainant repeatedly stated during the hearings that it was probable that the authorities did not have evidence against him. He only began to fear he was at risk of long-term detention after the two individuals to whom he had delivered goods had been arrested. It is also likely that the authorities released him each time hoping that he would get back in touch with Mr. Shibo, in order to gain evidence of dissident activity against them both. He reiterates that his first detention period lasted for several weeks. He submits that the Ethiopian authorities enquired about the activities of his two brothers, dating back 20 years, during his interrogation. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the Ethiopian intelligence services have conducted an investigation into the complainant’s activities since his departure, including his dissident activities in Switzerland, since they managed to uncover his family history. The complainant could therefore be identified as the brother of two former political opponents. Referring to a report by Amnesty International, he claims he could have “inherited” suspicion due to the views held by his brothers, therefore it is highly likely that he would be detained upon his return.13 5.7 The complainant also opposes the State party’s contention that there was no evidence to allow it to conclude that he was wanted by the authorities when he decided to leave Ethiopia. He claims that the two arrested persons to whom he was delivering goods could reveal his identity and activities, and therefore provide evidence to justify his long- 12 13 The complainant refers to the Federal Administrative Court judgment of 13 July 2016. Amnesty International, “Because I am Oromo”, p. 10. 7