CAT/C/54/D/491/2012 scar as a consequence of the ill-treatment suffered while in detention in Ethiopia. The Committee has reviewed all the material before it and notes that during the first interview relating to her first asylum request, the complainant mentioned that, while in detention in Ethiopia, a police officer had beaten her on her breast; then, when she was lying on the floor, he pressed on her back with his boots, as a result of which, she has a lesion on her back; the doctor at the asylum reception centre had asked her about it; she did not tell him the origin of the lesion; and further medical examinations were to be carried out at the centre to find out the cause of the lesion. The complainant has not indicated to the Committee that the State party refused to carry out medical examinations, nor has she given any reasons that may prevent her from requesting such examinations or why she did not include that allegation in her appeals or in her second asylum request.17 The case file does not contain any information as to whether further medical examinations were appropriate in the complainant’s case. Nonetheless, the Committee recalls that ill-treatment suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account; the relevant issue before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Ethiopia. 18 The Committee considers that, even if it were assumed that the complainant was mistreated by the police in the past, it does not automatically follow that, almost 10 years after the alleged events occurred, she would still be at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if returned to Ethiopia.19 7.6 The complainant further claims that she has been an active member of OLFSwitzerland, which has been documented in pictures on Internet sites. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that the Ethiopian authorities use sophisticated technological means to monitor Ethiopian dissidents abroad. However, the Committee observes that she has not elaborated on that claim or presented any evidence to support it. The Committee also notes that the State party has disputed that claim. 7.7 In the Committee’s view, the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence about the conduct of any political activity of such significance as to attract the interest of the Ethiopian authorities, nor has she submitted any other evidence to demonstrate that the authorities in her home country are looking for her or that she would face a personal risk of being tortured if returned to Ethiopia. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the information submitted by the complainant, including the unclear nature of her political activities in Ethiopia prior to her departure from that country and the low-level nature of her political activities Switzerland, is insufficient to show that she would be personally exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia. The Committee is concerned at the many reports of human rights violations, including the use of torture, in Ethiopia,20 against, inter alia, persons of Oromo ethnicity, but recalls that, for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is being returned. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee deems that such a risk has not been established. 8. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the State party’s decision to return the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 17 18 19 20 10 See communication No. 458/2011, X. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 9.4. See, for example, communications No. 61/1996, X. Y. and Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2; and No. 435/2010, G. B. M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2012, para. 7.7. See, for example, communication No. 431/2010, Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 May 2013, para. 7.7. The Committee notes that Ethiopia is also a State party to the Convention and recalls its 2011 concluding observations (see CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, paras. 10–14).