CAT/C/62/D/683/2015 4.5 The State party submits that, in its judgment in A.A. v. Switzerland,14 the European Court stated that the security and human rights situation in the Sudan was alarming and that it had further deteriorated. However, the European Court considered that, even in such circumstances, the complainant had to substantiate to the national asylum authorities that his or her treatment following removal to the Sudan would be incompatible with article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The European Court conceded that members of the political opposition, individuals suspected of contacts with rebel groups in Darfur, students, journalists and defenders of human rights were particularly vulnerable, while all persons opposing or suspected of opposing the current regime were generally at risk. 15 In the European Court’s view, the Government of the Sudan also monitored the activities of the opposition abroad. 4.6 The State party refers to various background reports on the situation of human rights in the Sudan that indicate, among other things, that the Government of the Sudan does not investigate cases of torture or excessive use of force by security agents, 16 that the Sudanese authorities are generally concerned only about activities considered to be significantly harmful to their interests and that they will not be concerned about a person who has merely claimed asylum abroad. 17 The reports also indicate that the National Intelligence and Security Service has continued to arbitrarily arrest and detain perceived opponents of the ruling National Congress Party. 18 Nonetheless, in reference to the current situation in the country, the State party argues that the complainant has not demonstrated that he would face a personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to the Sudan.19 4.7 Concerning the complainant’s claims that he was subjected to torture and illtreatment, and that his hand and leg were broken while in detention in the Sudan, the State party submits that he did not describe the circumstances surrounding that incident and did not submit any supportive evidence in that regard. During the first asylum procedure, the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court carefully examined the complainant’s allegations, which they did not find credible. During the second asylum procedure, the complainant simply reiterated previous claims, without producing any new evidence. 4.8 As asserted by the complainant, he only established contact with the Justice and Equality Movement in Switzerland and became engaged in politics following the conclusion of the first asylum procedure. He did not claim that he had been politically active prior to leaving the Sudan, 20 nor did he attract any adverse attention from the Sudanese authorities when in the Sudan. Following the first asylum procedure, the Swiss asylum authorities concluded that the allegations relating to his detention in the Sudan did not seem to be credible.21 It would appear that the European Court of Human Rights shared that view. 4.9 The national asylum authorities found that the complainant’s membership of, alleged activities relating to and purported service as secretary for social relations and media affairs of the Swiss branch of the Justice and Equality Movement did not result in his building up a profile that would entail a risk of persecution. The complainant himself has admitted that he 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 See A.A. v. Switzerland, para. 40. See also European Court of Human Rights, A.F. v. France (application No. 80086/13), judgment of 15 January 2015, para. 49; and European Court of Human Rights, A.A. v. France (application No. 18039/11), judgment of 15 January 2015, paras. 55 and 56. See the United States of America, Department of State, 2014 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Sudan, available at https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2014/af/236410.htm. See the United Kingdom, Home Office, Country information and guidance — Sudan: Treatment of persons involved in “sur place” activity in the UK, August 2015, p. 8. See Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State of the World’s Human Rights, p. 346, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/0001/2015/en/. See Switzerland, Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 26 March 2015, p. 9; and Switzerland, State Secretariat for Migration, decision of 5 February 2015, pp. 3 and 4. Neither before the national asylum authorities, nor before the Committee. See Switzerland, Federal Office for Migration, ruling of 25 September 2006, para. I.1; and Switzerland, Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 16 December 2009, para. 4.3, 5