CAT/C/49/D/406/2009 2.9 The complainant submits that police torture is still widespread in Ethiopia and refers to a report by the Human Rights Watch,6 which documents the use of torture by police and military officials in both official and secret detention facilities across 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 risks being arrested, interrogated and subjected to torture or other inhumane and 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 25 May 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. As to the facts, it adds that, on 5 November 2002, the complainant appealed to the Asylum Appeals Commission against the decision of the Federal Office for Refugees on her first asylum request. In its interlocutory decision of 14 November 2002, the Commission found that the complainant‟s appeal did not provide for sufficient reasons, gave her extra time to supplement the appeal and asked her to make an advance payment of the fees by 29 November 2002. On 9 December 2002, the Commission decided not to examine the complainant‟s appeal, since she neither supplemented it nor made the requested advance payment. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant argues 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. She does not present any new elements that would call into question the judgement of the Federal Administrative Court of 23 October 2009, which was made following a detailed examination of the case, but rather disputes the assessment of the facts and evidence by the Court. The State party submits that it will demonstrate the validity of the Court‟s decision, in the light of article 3 of the Convention and the jurisprudence of the Committee and its general comments, and maintains that the deportation of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the Convention by Switzerland. 4.3 The State party submits that 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.7 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”. 6 7 Reference is made to Human Rights Watch, “UK: Ethiopian „assurances‟ no guarantee against torture”, 17 September 2009. 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. 5