CAT/C/46/D/375/2009 The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his deportation from Switzerland to Ethiopia would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture on his return. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 27 May 2009, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. It states that the complainant has not established that he personally faced a real and foreseeable risk of torture if returned to Ethiopia. Referring to the Committee’s general comment No. 1,1 the State party notes that the opposition has had more seats in Parliament since the elections in Ethiopia in May and August 2005. Although arbitrary arrests and detention, particularly of members of opposition parties, are still common, and despite the fact that Ethiopia does not have an independent justice system, merely being a supporter or member of an opposition party does not in itself entail a risk of persecution. It is different for persons who hold key high-profile positions in an opposition party. The State party takes the view that members of the Oromo Liberation Front or the Ogaden National Liberation Front are at risk of persecution, but that other opposition groups such as the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD), also known abroad as Kinijit or CUDP, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. 4.2 As regards surveillance of political activities carried out in exile, the State party is of the view that Ethiopian diplomatic and consular missions abroad do not have the resources to systematically monitor the political activities of the opposition. Therefore only active or important representatives of opposition movements are at risk of being identified and registered, and thus of being persecuted if returned. The same applies to organizations or activists who advocate or engage in violent action. According to the State party, the Ethiopian authorities focus their attention above all on individuals who fit a certain profile because of their political activism as holders of particular posts, and so represent a danger to the current regime. The State party adds that the Ethiopian authorities are aware that many failed asylum-seekers, like the complainant, engage in political activities when their asylum application is definitively turned down. 4.3 In the specific case of the complainant, the State party notes that he does not claim to have been tortured, arrested or detained by the Ethiopian authorities. No criminal proceedings have been taken out against him. With reference to the conclusions of the former Federal Office for Refugees (now the Federal Office for Migration) and the Swiss Asylum Review Board, the State party adds that the complainant has not credibly demonstrated that he was politically active in Ethiopia. As for his political activities in Switzerland since his arrival in 2003, his involvement in organizing CUDP demonstrations against the current Ethiopian Government and his membership of Kinijit/CUDP, these are the kind of activities engaged in by most politically active Ethiopians in Switzerland. His role as a cantonal representative of the party does not entail greater responsibility. As he was not known to the authorities before he left Ethiopia, these authorities have no reason to monitor and record his current activities in Switzerland. 4.4 The State party disputes the complainant’s claim that his political activities were not carefully scrutinized in his interview with the Federal Office for Migration on 10 December 2008. In accordance with the applicable procedure, he took cognizance of and agreed with the statements of his representatives and said he had nothing to add to those statements. 1 4 General comment No. 1, A/53/44, annex IX (21 November 1997). The State party also refers to communications No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland (Views adopted on 19 May 1998) and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland (Views adopted on 10 November 1998). GE.11-43945