CAT/C/51/D/426/2010 concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.6 Such a pattern 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. To benefit from the protection under article 3, an applicant should show that he or she runs a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk of torture. 4.3 The State party considers that the facts of the complainant are insufficient and contain contradictory testimony on the alleged harassment she received by the Ethiopian authorities. She does not provide details of the harassment, and her complaint is inconsistent with the declarations she made at her first Federal Office for Migration hearing, when she stated that she had never been charged, detained or arrested by the Ethiopian authorities, and never personally experienced difficulties with either State authorities or private individuals. In her complaint, she stated that, beginning in November 2005, soldiers regularly came to her home to inquire about her brother. However, during the first Federal Office for Migration hearing, she stated that after the death of her mother, she left her home to stay with her brother’s fiancée and did not experience any problems. 4.4 The State party takes the view that suspected OLF affiliates may run a risk of persecution in Ethiopia. Expatriates who are active opponents of the Ethiopian regime may very well risk being identified and persecuted upon their return, even if the Government appears to lack the means to conduct systematic surveillance of political opponents abroad. Nevertheless, the State party submits that it is implausible that the Ethiopian authorities have taken note of the complainant’s activities (either in Ethiopia or abroad). In the instant proceeding, the complainant does not assert that she was politically active in Ethiopia, and her prior testimony on this issue indicated that her ONEG7 membership card was automatically issued due to her father’s membership in the party. Moreover, the documents she produced do not demonstrate that she has participated in any activities in favour of a political position in Switzerland. In its second decision, the Federal Administrative Tribunal noted the doubtful authenticity and veracity of the letters provided by the Oromo Parliamentarians Council (OPC) and Mr. Shiferaw. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the letter from Mr. Shiferaw (dated 11 March 2010) stated that the arrest of the complainant’s father occurred in 2006 and not, as the complainant had claimed, in 2005. Moreover, the signature on the letter did not match the signature on the undated OPC statement, which was also allegedly signed by Mr. Shiferaw. The Tribunal further noted that the OPC statement exhibited many spelling and syntax errors in the section discussing the personal situation of the complainant, contrary to the rest of the statement, which reproduced the information contained on the OPC website. The OPC statement did not feature the name of the secretary supposed to have signed it. It further erroneously stated that the Swiss authorities had rejected the complainant’s asylum application on the ground that Ethiopia is a democratic country. The State party further considers that the Ethiopian authorities do not target persons of Oromo ethnicity generally, but rather focus on high-profile individuals who, for example, participate in activities that could represent a danger to the Ethiopian 6 7 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, paras. 10.2 and 10.5, and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5. The complainant explained at her asylum hearing on 13 November 2007 that ONEG and OLF are the same entity. 5