CAT/C/48/D/396/2009 report establishing that some UFC members are at risk of torture refers to members who are not well known whereas the complainant claims he played a key role in UFC and even enjoyed the protection of Mr. H.O. Olympio; and that he cannot therefore be considered to be an ordinary UFC member. The Committee notes that the State party alleges that the complainant’s credibility is undermined by inconsistent and contradictory information, in particular regarding his place of domicile, his arrest on 28 March 2006 and his release from the Zébé camp. Lastly, the Committee notes that, according to the State party, many Togolese nationals in Switzerland take part in the same political activities as the complainant and that such activities do not constitute an additional risk for the complainant in the event of his being returned. 7.7 Having taken account of the arguments presented by the parties, the Committee considers that the complainant has submitted sufficient elements to suggest that he would be at risk of receiving treatment that violates article 1 of the Convention if he were returned to Togo. This conclusion is based primarily on the complainant’s claim, as corroborated by the Swiss Refugee Council report of 18 May 2009, that members of the opposition UFC with a low political profile may still be subjected to Government reprisals and that those who, like the complainant, fled Togo for Benin and Ghana are viewed with greater suspicion. Thus, regardless of whether he is a well-known or ordinary member of UFC, since UFC continues to be the main opposition party in Togo, the risk of torture is still present. The Swiss authorities have not contested the fact that the complainant has been an active member of UFC in Togo and Switzerland. The serious human rights violations committed during and after the presidential elections of 24 April 2005 have still not been the subject of a judicial inquiry, which creates a climate of impunity conducive to a recurrence of such violations.9 The Committee also notes that, despite its recommendations, Togo has still not adopted legislation that explicitly defines and criminalizes torture, which encourages impunity in respect of such practices.10 7.8 As to the medical certificates and reports submitted in support of the complainant’s asylum application, the three medical certificates of 25 July 2007, 7 March 2008 and 29 April 2009 confirm the precarious mental health of the complainant, which is connected to his past experiences. As to the medical report of 18 May 2009 issued by the psychiatric services of Solothurn, the Committee notes that it mentions terrorism or torture as a possible cause of the post-traumatic stress disorder that the complainant was diagnosed as having. The Committee is of the view that such elements should have caught the attention of the State party and constituted sufficient grounds for investigating the alleged risks more thoroughly. The Federal Administrative Court simply rejected them because they were not likely to call into question the assessment of the facts made in previous rulings. By proceeding in thus without considering those elements, even though they were submitted at a late stage in the proceedings, the Swiss authorities failed in their obligation to ensure that the complainant would not be at risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Togo. 7.9 On the basis of all the information submitted to it and in the absence of a thorough investigation by the State party showing otherwise, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has provided sufficient evidence for it to consider that his return to his country of origin would put him at a real, present and personal risk of being subjected to torture. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 9 10 10 See concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/TGO/CO/4), para. 10. See concluding observations of the Committee against Torture (CAT/C/TGO/CO/1), para. 10; and concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/TGO/CO/4), para. 15. GE.12-43942