CAT/C/49/D/432/2010 speculation, since her current country of residence and her e-mail address have been mentioned in the articles, she has submitted an Ethiopian identification card to the Swiss asylum authorities and has thereby proved her identity. If the Ethiopian authorities are aware that a person with the name of H.K. publishes critical articles, it can be deduced that they would suspect the complainant of being that person if she were to be returned from Switzerland to Ethiopia. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that her forcible deportation to Ethiopia would amount to a violation by Switzerland of her rights under article 3 of the Convention, since she, as an active and outstanding member of the Ethiopian dissident community, risks being subjected to torture or other cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment by the Ethiopian authorities as a result of her political activities in Switzerland. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 24 February 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It recalls the facts of the complaint and notes the complainant’s arguments before the Committee that she would run a personal, real and serious risk of being subjected to torture if returned to her country of origin, because of her political activities in Switzerland, especially those in which she had been engaged after the judgement of the Federal Administrative Court of 11 December 2008. She does not present any new elements 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 assessment of the facts and evidence by them. The State party maintains that the deportation of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the Convention by Switzerland. 4.2 According to article 3 of the Convention, the States 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, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 9 The existence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that an individual might be subjected to torture upon his or her return to his or her country, and additional grounds must exist for the risk of torture to qualify under the meaning of article 3 as “foreseeable, real and personal”. 4.3 Regarding the general human rights situation in Ethiopia, the State party submits that the elections in Ethiopia in May 2005 and August 2005 have strengthened the representation of opposition parties in Parliament. It recognizes that, although the Ethiopian Constitution explicitly recognizes human rights, there are many instances of arbitrary arrests and detentions, particularly of members of opposition parties. In addition, there is a lack of an independent judiciary. However, being a member or supporter of an opposition political party does not, in principle, lead to a risk of persecution. It is different for persons 9 6 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX), paras. 6 and 8, and the Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.2, and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5.