CAT/C/62/D/683/2015 did not hold a high-ranking management post within the Movement 22 and that he was not the only person in charge of media affairs. The use of the title of “secretary” suggests a general role, not requiring specific qualifications or a high level of engagement. According to the State party, the author described his role in vague terms, claiming that he took part in numerous meetings and conferences, of which only two were documented by photographs. He only had contact with the secretary-general of the Justice and Equality Movement in London on one occasion, despite claiming that he was frequently in contact with senior members of the Justice and Equality Movement and that he regularly disseminated information to new arrivals from the Sudan. The State party claims that, unlike the author of the European Court of Human Rights application A.A. v. Switzerland, the complainant did not have a particularly extensive or long-established political profile, neither was he directly exposed to or in contact with the Sudanese authorities. The European Court judgment in question is based on specific circumstances and cannot be used as a basis for concluding that all Sudanese nationals engaged in political activity in Switzerland would face a personal risk of being tortured if returned to the Sudan, whatever the nature, extent and duration of their alleged political engagement. 4.10 The State party maintains that the specific circumstances of the complainant’s case have been duly considered by the State Secretariat for Migration. 23 It appears that, following the rejection of his first asylum application, the complainant tried to build up a political profile in order to obtain residency. The aim of his alleged political activities was to influence the Swiss authorities rather than to have an impact on the situation in the Sudan. That is why the complainant indicated in his second asylum application that he gained a political profile following the rejection of his first asylum application. The State party therefore considers that the description of his activities is exaggerated and unsubstantiated. 4.11 The complainant does not justify his claim that his political profile is such that it would make him a target of persecution. The State party asserts that the Sudanese authorities are able to distinguish between the many Sudanese nationals who participate in protests around Europe in order to obtain residence permits and true political activists opposing and possibly representing a danger to the regime and who attracted the attention of the Sudanese authorities prior to their departure from the Sudan. The State party contends that the identity of the complainant was not disclosed to the Sudanese authorities when he requested his documents, since he did not speak Arabic or English in the presence of the delegation of the Sudan. Therefore, the State party does not consider it to be probable that the complainant would be identified upon his return to the Sudan. 4.12 The evidence submitted by the complainant could not lead to a different assessment. He presented two letters from Abdulrahman Sharafedin, dated 25 March 2013, according to which he was an “active member”, “strong supporter” and “highly qualified member” of the Justice and Equality Movement. The Federal Administrative Court observed that those letters had been produced immediately after the complainant joined the Movement at the end of January 2013 and considered that they had been issued as a matter of courtesy. 24 Neither the letter from Ahmed Atim, of 13 March 2013, attesting to the complainant’s membership of the Justice and Equality Movement, nor the complainant’s Justice and Equality Movement membership card, if genuine, could be considered as evidence that he would be at particular risk of ill-treatment if returned to the Sudan. Moreover, the Federal Administrative Court considered that the two photographs of the complainant participating in Justice and Equality Movement meetings at the Volkshaus in Zurich, on 26 November 2013, and at the headquarters of Geneva Call, on 25 February 2014, were taken privately and did not confirm that the complainant was a particularly high-profile member of the Movement. The complainant himself has confirmed that the photograph of him with the media secretaries, Tom Hajo and Jibril Ibrahim, had been taken prior to the arrival of the public. The other photograph of him taken from the audience shows that the seat next to the secretary for social and media affairs was not reserved for the complainant. The State party submits that none of the photographs portrays the complainant with the public and that the 22 23 24 6 See Switzerland, Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 9 March 2015, p. 5. See Switzerland, State Secretariat for Migration, decision of 5 February 2015, p. 3. See Switzerland, Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 26 March 2015, p. 7.