CAT/C/46/D/375/2009 Moreover, the procedure requires that he then be asked about his political activities since his last written statement, and after this the complainant must again confirm that he has nothing new to add. According to the State party, under this procedure, both the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Tribunal rightly concluded, after a detailed examination of the case, that the complainant ran no risk of being tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 22 June 2009, the complainant reiterated that he would be at risk of being tortured if returned to Ethiopia, since the Ethiopian authorities closely monitored and recorded the activities of political opponents abroad. According to the complainant, the Federal Administrative Tribunal itself acknowledged, in its decision in his case, that political opponents abroad were under surveillance.2 He reiterates that he has an unmistakable political profile and adds that he mentioned in his first asylum application that he had been a member of Oromo Neetsaanet Gymbaar (ONEG) for several years in Ethiopia. 5.2 The complainant points out that worldwide demonstrations against the current Ethiopian regime had been held in January, March and May 2009. The Swiss section of CUDP had been involved in organizing these activities, in partnership with the Kinijit international movement. He adds that the Swiss section of CUDP is part of a global movement of opposition to the current Ethiopian regime. This raises its profile and makes it an organization seen as a threat by the regime. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 In the absence of any other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered this complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia, the Committee 2 GE.11-43945 Without giving a reference, the complainant also mentions another decision of the Federal Administrative Tribunal in which he says the Tribunal granted refugee status to an Ethiopian national who worked for the Ethiopian Human Rights Council before leaving the country and who had also been an active CUDP cantonal representative. Refugee status did not appear to have been granted to this individual solely on the basis of his political activities in Switzerland. 5