CAT/C/49/D/406/2009 opposition movement and frequently arresting not only its leaders but also followers and supporters. She adds that only the increased interest in the whole12 of the opposition movement of the Ethiopian authorities – and not only its leaders – can explain the extent of monitoring and surveillance currently implemented by the Zenawi regime. The complainant reiterates her initial claim that she is not a mere KINIJIT supporter but a cantonal representative, who often appears as a speaker on the occasion of political events. She further notes that she maintains personal contacts with leading personalities of the Ethiopian opposition worldwide and that she has been photographed with them on many occasions. Therefore, the complainant argues that it must be assumed that she has indeed been identified by the Ethiopian authorities. 5.2 The complainant further submits that incidents of torture or other prohibited treatment are frequently reported in Ethiopia. Thus, even a mere arrest that is not followed by a conviction may entail mistreatments, in particular in cases of female detainees.13 The complainant argues that there is a real and imminent risk that she would face torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment in detention if she were forcibly returned to Ethiopia, and reiterates her request for interim measures of protection. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the instant case the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Ethiopia would violate the State party‟s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Ethiopia. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant 12 13 8 pp. 121-126; Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2011, pp. 132-140; The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, “Country report: Ethiopia”, April 2011, p. 9. Emphasis added by the complainant. Reference is made to the United States Department of State, 2010 Country Reports (note 11 above); and Human Rights Watch, submission to the Committee against Torture on Ethiopia, September 2010.