CAT/C/48/D/396/2009 democratization process should be monitored for a further period in order to establish whether persons deported to Togo were no longer at risk of being prosecuted or tortured. 3.2 The complainant adds that, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the principle of non-refoulement requires an effective and thorough official investigation to be conducted into credible allegations of inhuman treatment.4 In the present case, neither the Federal Office for Migration nor the Federal Administrative Court carried out a thorough and effective investigation. The Court concluded that there was no risk on the basis of Amnesty International reports and a 2008 Swiss Refugee Council report, whereas the complainant produced a subsequent report from the Swiss Refugee Council dated 18 May 2009 confirming that individuals in the complainant’s situation were at risk. The State party has thus violated the spirit and intent of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court merely confirmed the Federal Office for Migration’s decision without conducting its own review of the additional elements included in the file. Lastly, the Office’s decision of 19 May 2009 rejecting the request to reconsider the application and the 10 June 2009 ruling by the Court upholding that decision show that no investigation took place, since the medical certificates attested to the fact that the complainant had been subjected to torture but were not considered by these two bodies as carrying sufficient weight to warrant reconsideration of the asylum application. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 17 February 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It notes that the complainant has not provided the Committee with any new elements. On the contrary, the complainant first contests the domestic authorities’ assessment of the facts, then describes in general terms the human rights situation in Togo before claiming, on the basis of his own assessment of the facts, that he would face a real, personal and immediate risk of being tortured in the event of his removal to Togo. 4.2 Recalling the provisions of article 3 of the Convention, the State party emphasizes the criteria established by the Committee in general comment No. 1 (1996), on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22,5 in particular paragraphs 6 ff., which require the complainant to prove that he is in personal, present and substantial danger of being tortured if deported to his country of origin. 4.3 According to the State party, the situation in Togo has improved considerably since the complainant left the country. In August 2006, the five main opposition parties signed a global political accord with the ruling party, the Rassemblement du Peuple Togolais (RPT), establishing a Government of national unity. This led to the appointment of a long-standing member of the opposition to the post of Prime Minister, the establishment of a Government that included opposition parties and the formation of the Independent National Electoral Commission, in which the Union des Forces de Changement (UFC) was represented, even though it was still in opposition. The State party adds that a tripartite agreement between Togo, Ghana and Benin was concluded in April 2006 under UNHCR auspices. Under the agreement, the Togolese Government undertook to take all measures to ensure a dignified and safe return for refugees. In June 2008, some of those who had fled Togo during the presidential elections returned to their country, with no persecution being reported. They included Gilchrist Olympio, the UFC president, who returned to Togo after eight years in exile. 4 5 GE.12-43942 The complainant does not cite specific case law. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44). 5