CAT/C/51/D/426/2010 states that the complainant has been an OCS member since 2008. The letter, dated 9 September 2013, states that the purpose of OCS is to promote Oromo culture and language within the diaspora and Switzerland. The letter also states that the complainant was “victimized and brutally mistreated by the Ethiopia government security forces”. The letter does not specify the basis for this statement. The medical certificate states that the complainant has, since 2 May 2012, required regular medical treatment for a chronic inflammatory disease of the spine and pelvis. The separate medical report, dated 26 April 2013, states that the complainant suffers from recurrent depressive disorder, and that any further stress risks aggravating her condition. A second medical report by the same psychologist, issued on 9 September 2013 and requested by the Federal Office for Migration, provides a favourable mid-term prognosis for the complainant but states that the prognosis would be unfavourable should the complainant return to Ethiopia, due to the weak medical system in Ethiopia as well as the complainant’s status as a single woman. State party’s comments on the complainant’s additional submission 7.1 On 10 October 2013, the State party submitted a response to the complainant’s additional submission. The State party considers that the complainant has not furnished any information regarding her claimed political activities in Switzerland. The State party further notes the discrepancy between the dates of birth stated on the OCS letter and the OCS membership card. The State party also takes the view that the medical certificate and reports do not indicate that the complainant would be subject to treatment in violation of article 3 if returned to Ethiopia. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture 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. 8.2 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 concedes that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8.3 The Committee considers that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, and that these issues should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 9.1 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. 9.2 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 7