CAT/C/66/D/820/2017 independent evidence supporting these claims; (c) engagement by the complainant in political activities within or outside the State concerned; and (d) evidence as to the complainant’s credibility. 4.6 The State party submits that the complainant is not in a position to provide evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Togo and that she has been unable to demonstrate that she would be at a personal risk of being subjected to torture in that country. 3 The State party further submits that the existence of a pattern of human rights violations, as defined in article 3 (2) of the Convention, does not constitute sufficient grounds to find that a person would be at risk of torture on return to his or her country of origin and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The State party submits that Togo is not currently displaying a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights and that the political situation in Togo therefore does not preclude the complainant’s return to that country. 4 Moreover, the general human rights situation is not in itself sufficient to make the complainant’s return incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. The State party submits that the complainant has failed to make a convincing argument that she would face treatment prohibited under article 3 if she were returned to Togo. 4.7 The State party submits that the complainant has not claimed to have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in the recent past or provided independent evidence supporting such a claim. The complainant has stated that the father of her child has been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment; however, she did not claim to have suffered such treatment herself. The State party emphasizes that, while the complainant stated that she had been arrested and detained for eight days at a military encampment in June 2012, she did not claim, either in the complaint or during the hearings before the national authorities, to have been subjected to treatment prohibited under the Convention or to have had problems with the authorities aside from her arrest in 2012. 4.8 The State party submits that the complainant has failed to provide evidence of any engagement in political activities, either inside or outside her country of origin, that might bear out the claim that she would face a risk of torture upon return. In support of her claims, the complainant submitted four photographs of herself at a political rally in Togo on 19 March 2011, her voter registration card, two summonses dated 1 and 15 April 2016 issued by the lower court of Lomé, and the State prosecutor’s complaint. In addition, the State party notes that the State Secretariat for Migration ruled on the claims during its consideration of the complainant’s asylum application,5 and her request for review, 6 noting, in its decision of 7 March 2016, the lack of credibility of the complainant’s claims concerning her arrest at the protest of 12 June 2012, her detention and her escape. 4.9 The State party further submits that the complainant’s appearance in four photographs, in which she is seen wearing an Alliance nationale pour le changement T-shirt, at a rally that reportedly took place on 19 March 2011, cannot serve to establish that she participated in the protest of 12 June 2012, after which she was allegedly arrested. The State party argues that the complainant has not provided any information likely to invalidate the findings of the State Secretariat for Migration. It considers that there is nothing in the applicant’s file to indicate that she is a high-profile member of the Alliance nationale pour le changement and that, to the best of the State Secretariat for Migration’s knowledge, activists and ordinary members of that party are not persecuted. 4.10 According to the State party, the decisions of the Swiss asylum authorities make it clear that the complainant’s claims are not credible and that her statements do not in any way suggest that there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be subject to torture if she were to return to her country of origin. The complainant failed to provide any factual information to the State Secretariat for Migration regarding the circumstances of her arrest in Togo in June 2012, such as basic information on the two people in plain clothes 3 4 5 6 4 K.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para. 10.2. Decision of the State Secretariat for Migration dated 7 March 2016, p. 5. See the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration dated 7 March 2016. See the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration dated 28 September 2016; see also the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court dated 2 November 2016. GE.19-12298