Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2651/2015 Oromo people continued to be arrested or remained in detention in previous years, based on peaceful expression of dissent or their suspected opposition. Following protests against the planned expansion of Addis Ababa into Oromo territory, increased levels of arrests of actual or suspected dissenters continued. However, the background information does not lead to the conclusion that any contact or affiliation with the Oromo people or involvement in its struggle would justify granting asylum.5 Moreover, there are no reports of Ethiopian nationals who have been imprisoned or subjected to other abuse following a forcible return, with some sources having indicated that they would have been informed of such incidents. Persons most likely to attract attention are those perceived as threats, those willing to use military power, opposition leaders and the most prominent members. However, anonymous participation in demonstrations with hundreds of participants will not in itself lead to persecution. 4.11 The State party further notes that the author has not returned to Ethiopia and that there are no specific reasons to assume that the Sudanese authorities have any information or documentation concerning her involvement in OLF activities in Sudan from 2003 to 2006 that could have been transmitted to the Ethiopian authorities. The State party argues that this perception is exclusively based on her own presumption. Further, the letter dated 30 August 2015 from the OLF Committee Chairperson in the United Kingdom cannot lead to a different assessment, as it only relates to her limited activities in Khartoum and provides only general information on the monitoring of Oromo activities outside of Ethiopia, without being linked specifically to her. Additionally, the State party has not been able to confirm by a general internet search for the name of the author of the letter, including on the OLF website, that this person chairs the OLF Committee in the United Kingdom or can otherwise be associated with it. Thus, neither the general situation for Oromo people in Ethiopia nor the information provided by the author can lead to the conclusion that she risks being imprisoned, tortured, abducted or killed upon return to Ethiopia. The information on her health cannot lead to a different assessment, and she has been cured from tuberculosis. 4.12 The State party notes the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the domestic authorities, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists. 6 The State party argues that the author benefited from due process guarantees, that she has not provided any new, specific details about her situation and that the communication does not identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the authorities failed to properly consider. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 22 September 2016, the author agrees that article 24 of the Covenant is irrelevant as it has not previously proven to have extraterritorial effect. However, the fact that she has a child, born because of her sexual abuse in Italy, renders her and her child more vulnerable to serious harm covered by articles 6 and 7 if removed to Ethiopia, where they have no more family. 5.2 The author notes that the decision of the DIS is purely administrative and no legal counsel or independent third party is mandatory. During the interview, the DIS representative 5 6 https://www.refworld.org/docid/54f07df3c.html#:~:text=Freedom%20of%20expression%20continue d%20to,were%20subject%20to%20further%20attack.. The State party notes that the Committee against Torture, in a case concerning the removal of a female ethnic Oromo who claimed that her father had carried out political activities and who claimed to have been tortured on account of her and her father’s activities for the OLF, concluded that the complainant’s removal to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; X. v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), par. 9.8. The State party also refers to H.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/49/D/432/2010), where the Committee against Torture also found that the forced return of a female Ethiopian complainant who claimed to have been active for another Ethiopian opposition party in Ethiopia and Switzerland, would not violate article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.3; K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), paras. 7.3-7.4; N. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014), para. 6.6; Mr. X. and Ms. X. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 7.5; Z. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014), para. 7.4. 5