CAT/C/49/D/432/2010 suggest that the Ethiopian authorities were indeed monitoring different forms of dissent very closely. The country of origin information request referred to by the State party 23 was published in early 2007 and it cannot, therefore, be considered a reliable source to refute her claim that she would be subjected to persecution on the account of her political activities if she were to be forcibly returned to Ethiopia. 5.2 The complainant notes that, according to the State party’s asylum law, a new asylum request must contain evidence that incidents which have occurred since the last asylum decision24 are relevant to the determination of a refugee status. The reasons for seeking asylum that have already been presented during the earlier asylum procedure may only be invoked through a request for revision, in which case new evidence substantiating these grounds must be presented. In this regard, she maintains her claims of having been imprisoned and severely ill-treated in May 2006. The complainant argues that, contrary to the State party’s appreciation, it is not surprising that she did not make these claims on the occasion of the second asylum request. The Swiss asylum authorities did not deem this allegation credible when she presented it during the first asylum procedure and she could not present any new evidence substantiating her claims during the second asylum procedure. Filing a request for revision without being able to present new evidence would have been a futile and costly endeavour. 5.3 As to her political activities within Ethiopia, the complainant reiterates that she was a member of KINIJIT prior to her arrival in Switzerland. She submits that during the asylum interview in relation to the first asylum request, she had answered all questions about KINIJIT correctly but had not been asked to explain the organization’s ambitions or structure in more detail. Furthermore, the interview lasted for only two hours, including interpretation into Amharic. She argues, therefore, that the alleged inability to provide information cannot be held against her. The complainant adds that she has never been asked by the Swiss asylum authorities whether or not she had been convicted. Furthermore, the translation of the document confirming her detention 25 was done by the complainant herself and she is not a professional translator. 5.4 In relation to her political activities in Switzerland, the complainant reiterates that she has been a member of KSOS since October 2007 and is a cantonal representative. She states that she has published many well-informed and critical articles against the regime of Meles Zenawi and regularly contributes to the blogs. In support of her claims the complainant submits copies of an article and eight blog entries that have been written by her since she submitted her complaint to the Committee. 5.5 The complainant notes that the State party essentially refers to the decision of the Federal Office for Migration and states that she is not likely to have been identified as a regime critic by the Ethiopian authorities. She argues, however, that this decision was taken in November 2009 and that since then she has become one of the most active members of the Ethiopian dissident movement in Switzerland. She has published several articles on the political developments in Ethiopia and takes a leading role in the course of demonstrations. The complainant concludes that, given the increased efforts of the Ethiopian authorities to control the expression of criticism, she would be at risk of being apprehended and detained upon her return to Ethiopia. 23 24 25 10 See footnote 11 above. Emphasis added by the complainant. See footnote 2 above.