CAT/C/54/D/491/2012 3.4 The Government of Ethiopia outlawed OLF in 1992 and classified it as a terrorist organization. Its members and other Oromo individuals involved in political opposition are frequently accused of terrorism and detained. Reports indicate that, in 2004, OLF and Mecha Tulema members were detained, held incommunicado and tortured. An Amnesty International report confirmed that the complainant’s friend, A.G., was among those detained.5 Later, the Government intensified its efforts to limit the influence of armed opposition groups. As part of those efforts, new anti-terrorist legislation was enacted with powerful means to repress critical voices and the right to freedom of expression. In 2011, hundreds of members of OLF and other Oromo opposition parties (for example, the Oromo Federal Democratic Movement and the Oromo People’s Congress) were arbitrarily arrested and detained.6 The Government is also closely monitoring “dissident web pages”, as they are perceived as potentially destabilizing for the regime. Against this background, the complainant asserts that persons suspected of links with OLF are at grave risk of being persecuted, detained and subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. 3.5 The complainant refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on Ethiopia7 and argues that owing to her continued activism and presence within OLF and the Oromo community in Switzerland, she has become a visible figure in the Oromo exile movement. It is thus highly likely that the Ethiopian authorities have noticed her activism against the Government and her relationship with those organizations. State party’s observations on the merits8 4.1 On 22 August 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. The State party points out that, in her first asylum request, the complainant stated that she was a “sympathizer” of OLF and Mecha Tulema, that she was arrested and detained in Ethiopia the night of 7 to 8 May 2004, and that she had left her country of origin to escape poverty. The migration authorities and the Federal Administrative Court thoroughly examined her allegations before rejecting her asylum request. 4.2 The complainant’s second request for asylum was grounded solely on her activities in Switzerland, in particular activities carried out after the Federal Administrative Court had rejected her first asylum request on 12 October 2010. The Court examined her new claims and the evidence submitted; however, it concluded that they were not substantiated. The State party further notes that the complainant does not present any new elements to the Committee that would call into question the decisions of the Swiss asylum authorities, which were made following a detailed examination of the case, but rather disputes the authorities’ assessment of the facts and evidence. Accordingly, the Court maintains that her deportation to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the Convention by Switzerland. 4.3 Pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, State parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, 5 6 7 8 The complainant refers to Amnesty International, “Ethiopie. Craintes de torture/arrestations arbitraires/prisonniers d’opinion”, 27 September 2004. The complainant refers to reports quoted in Country of Origin Research and Information, Ethiopia: Treatment of members of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), including members of their family, 6 July 2009; Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2012: Ethiopia”; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, press release, “Ethiopia: UN experts disturbed at persistent misuses of terrorism law to curb freedom of expression”, 2 February 2012, in which United Nations Special Rapporteurs expressed their dismay at the abuse of anti-terrorist laws against journalists in Ethiopia. See CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, para. 10. The State party did not contest the admissibility of the complaint. 5