CAT/C/59/D/658/2015 to ask her to send evidence to prove her plight to the Swiss authorities, despite the danger that could represent. She has since broken off all contact with her relatives in Ethiopia for security reasons. The complainant therefore considers that it is unclear how her family relations are not credible. 5.10 Lastly, with regard to the validity of the arrest warrant provided by the complainant and contested by the State party, she says that the fact that the warrant mentions a previous warrant to that reported by the complainant does not call into question the validity of the document. Her intention had been to describe the events that had led her to leave Ethiopia and so she did not mention the previous arrest. Furthermore, the content of the arrest warrant is absolutely consistent with the complainant’s story. 5.11 The complainant has physical and mental health problems: she suffers from bronchial asthma, a hiatal hernia, pangastritis and nasal polyps. Her doctors say that she must follow her medical treatment regularly and exactly. One of the doctors considers it essential that the complainant remain in Switzerland for that purpose. In terms of mental health, the complainant is suffering from a major depressive episode and suicidal ideation. Both doctors say that the depression shows signs of becoming chronic and has become exacerbated since the complainant’s asylum application was refused. She therefore needs sustained and regular psychiatric care. It would be desirable that she be able to continue enjoying good quality treatment and that she not be exposed to any more stressful situations. She also suffers from problems with concentration and memory, which at least partially explains the vagueness and inconsistencies in her statements during the hearings before the Swiss authorities. To assess the complainant’s credibility, her vulnerable mental state must be taken into account, which she does not believe that the Swiss authorities have done. 5.12 In conclusion, there are serious grounds for fearing that the complainant would be subjected to torture if she were to return to Ethiopia. The complainant therefore asks the Committee to conclude that her removal would violate the principle of non-refoulement and would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party concedes that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Consequently, the Committee finds no obstacle to admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 (1) 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 risk being subjected to torture. 7.3 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 her country of origin. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account GE.17-04946 7