CAT/C/49/D/432/2010 who hold a prominent position in an opposition political party. 10 In the light of the above information, the competent Swiss asylum authorities have adopted differentiated practices to determine the risk of persecution. Individuals who are suspected by the Ethiopian authorities to be members of the Oromo Liberation Front or the Ogaden National Liberation Front are considered at risk of persecution. 4.4 With regard to monitoring political activities in exile, the State party submits that according to the information available to it, the Ethiopian diplomatic or consular missions lack the personnel and structural resources to systematically monitor the political activities of opposition members in Switzerland. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada was unable to find any information proving that such observation indeed existed.11 However, active and/or important members of the opposition, as well as activists of organizations who are campaigning for the use of violence, run the risk of being identified and registered and, therefore, of being persecuted if returned. 4.5 With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (para. 8 (b)), the State party submits that torture or ill-treatment allegedly suffered by the complainant in the past is one of the elements that should be taken into account in assessing the risk of him or her being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to the country of origin. In this regard, the State party recalls the complainant’s claim that she had been ill-treated during her detention in May 2006. It adds, however, that this allegation was not substantiated by the complainant before the Swiss asylum authorities during the first asylum procedure and that the document issued by the Addis Ababa City Administration Police Commission which she had submitted to the Committee12 does not change the previously made assessment. It is, therefore, not surprising that the complainant did not maintain this claim in her second asylum request of 24 April 2009. The State party is, however, astonished that the complainant raised this claim before the Committee without presenting supporting evidence. 4.6 As to the political activities in which the complainant engaged in her home country, the State party submits that during the first asylum procedure she mentioned, inter alia, that she was politically active in Ethiopia. Although the complainant claimed to be a member of KINIJIT, she could provide only superficial and vague information about the opposition group in question. One would expect, however, more specific knowledge from someone who, like the complainant, received a university education and claimed to be interested in the political life of his or her home country. 4.7 The State party further notes that the complainant left Ethiopia legally approximately a year after her detention. She arrived in Zurich on 4 June 2007 on a passport issued on 8 February 2007 upon her request and without encountering any difficulties, by a direct flight from Addis Ababa to attend a conference in Geneva as a representative of her employer. The complainant seems to have destroyed her passport after her arrival and spent about three weeks with her compatriots before finally applying for asylum on 25 June 2007. Such behaviour appears to be rather surprising in the light of the complainant’s claimed political activities and her alleged persecution by the Ethiopian 10 11 12 The State party refers to the operational guidance note on Ethiopia published by the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in March 2009, para. 3.7.9. Reference is made to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “Éthiopie : information sur l’existence d'éléments prouvant que des agents du gouvernement surveillent les manifestations hostiles à l’Éthiopie en Europe et en Amérique du Nord (2006-février 2007)”, 13 March 2007. See footnote 2 above. 7