CAT/C/62/D/683/2015 refuted the State party’s claims that his allegations were not credible as they lacked detail and objected to the lack of sensitivity towards cultural differences relating to communication in the Sudan and in Switzerland. 5.3 As regards the national asylum authorities’ considerations that it was improbable that the complainant would have been released in the given circumstances, in particular as he threatened to kill the guard during their fight, the complainant accepts that the State party is probably correct in assuming that the circumstances of his release were atypical. He admitted that the reasons for his release from detention were unclear. Since he was not politically active, there was no real reason to keep him in detention. However, it cannot be concluded from the unclear circumstances surrounding his release that his detention in the Sudan lacks credibility. On the contrary, the complainant maintains that the circumstances of his detention in the Sudan have been described in a credible and coherent way, that his account of events did not contain any discrepancies and that the Sudanese authorities definitely know his identity. 5.4 Regarding his political activities in Switzerland, the complainant refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in A.A. v. Switzerland, according to which the situation of political opponents to the Government of Sudan remains precarious. He claims that it is not only individuals with a particular profile who are at risk, but all persons who oppose or who are perceived as opposing the current regime. 27 The Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland confirmed such an interpretation in its judgment of 27 January 2016 relating to another case involving similar circumstances. 28 The complainant claims that the facts in his case are similar and that his political activities have been even more visible. More specifically, he is not only the vice-secretary but the main secretary for social and media affairs and the secretary of the Swiss branch of the Justice and Equality Movement. In this regard, the complainant refers to his oral hearing of 19 November 2014, during which he described his role, contacts and supporting evidence, including the letters of support and photographs of him participating in meetings of the Justice and Equality Movement. However, he submits that the regularity and frequency of his political activities cannot be effectively supported by evidence. 5.5 The complainant also objects to the State party’s claim that he engaged in politics in order to obtain a Swiss residence permit, arguing that the types of activities he carried out were regularly monitored by the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service. 29 Therefore, he fears that he faces a risk of being followed and monitored. In the light of his participation in Justice and Equality Movement conferences and his media role within the Movement, the arguments of the State party should be viewed as being erroneous. He claims that the Federal Administrative Court had stated in the above-mentioned decision relating to a case involving similar circumstances that nationals of the Sudan returned to their country of origin after several years (the complainant had lived abroad for almost 11 years at the time of submission of his comments) were generally interrogated by the security authorities of the Sudan. It had also stated that persons who had been in contact with one of the opposition groups in Geneva and who had been politically engaged against the Government of the Sudan were most probably monitored by the Sudanese security authorities. Accordingly, the complainant claims that individuals who are in a similar situation will be arrested and detained by the authorities upon return to the Sudan. He concludes that the fact that he was not in direct contact with the Sudanese authorities is irrelevant. 27 28 29 8 See A.A. v. Switzerland, para. 40. This jurisprudence was confirmed in A.F. v. France, para. 49. In its judgment No. E-678-2012 of 27 January 2016, the Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland stated that, even though the complainant concerned did not have a high political profile, he was the vice-secretary for media of the Justice and Equality Movement. The Court concluded that, given that fact, it was likely that he had come to the attention of the Sudanese authorities (p. 13). The Federal Administrative Court further held that the Justice and Equality Movement was one of the major rebel organizations operating in the Sudan and that the Sudanese authorities used every means to combat it (p. 14). See, for example, Switzerland, Federal Administrative Court, judgment No. E-1979/2008 of 31 May 2013, para. 10.5.