CAT/C/49/D/432/2010 authorities. Furthermore, she presented the transport documents and referred to the conference only towards the end of her first asylum procedure.13 4.8 The State party submits that the assessment made by the Swiss asylum authorities during the complainant’s first asylum procedure is not altered by the document confirming her detention14 that was presented by the complainant to the Committee on 8 September 2010 and that had previously been examined by the Federal Administrative Court.15 According to this document, the complainant had been convicted16 by a federal court, whereas she did not mention the existence of such a conviction either before the Swiss asylum authorities or in her complaint to the Committee. The State party also notes that the document in question is contradictory, because the first paragraph states that the complainant is charged and, according to the second paragraph, she was sentenced to one month in prison. In the light of all these elements, the State party seriously questions the authenticity of the said document. It concludes by endorsing the conclusion of the Federal Administrative Court17 that the complainant had no political profile prior to her departure from Ethiopia. 4.9 As to the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, the State party notes that the complainant claims to have participated in numerous demonstrations against the Ethiopian authorities, written articles and contributed to the cyberethiopia.com forum, as well as held positions within two political movements in exile. The State party notes that the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court made a detailed assessment of whether there was a risk for the complainant to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment on the account of her alleged activities if returned to Ethiopia. In relation to the complainant’s claim of being a member of AES, the State party argues that according to the commercial registry, AES is a politically neutral organization which is involved exclusively in cultural activities. Therefore, the complainant is not at risk of being persecuted on account of her membership in that organization. 4.10 In relation to the complainant’s claim of being the cantonal representative of Lucerne for KSOS, the State party notes that her role in this organization was the subject of the asylum interview by the Federal Office of Migration on 30 October 2009. After having been unable to describe her concrete role as the cantonal representative, the complainant finally admitted that there was no hierarchical structure in the canton of Lucerne. The State party adds that it is also apparent from the minutes of the interview that the role of the complainant in two events that she attended in 2009 was indistinguishable from that of many other participants. The complainant was also involved in raising money and participated in a meeting organized by the Zurich KINIJIT/CUDP. 4.11 As to the articles allegedly published by the complainant on the Internet, the State party points out that they have also been the subject of a detailed assessment by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. The Federal Office for Migration took into account the explanations given by the complainant during the asylum interview and held that, given the number of comparable articles, the articles written by the complainant would not have attracted any particular attention of the Ethiopian authorities. The fact that she could provide only superficial and vague information about her political activities in Ethiopia during the first asylum procedure is yet another element that brings 13 14 15 16 17 8 Reference is made to the judgement of the Federal Administrative Court of 11 December 2008. See footnote 2 above. See footnote 13 above. Emphasis added by the State party. See footnote 13 above.