CAT/C/62/D/688/2015 certificates to the Committee: a medical report dated 2 April 2015 concerning an x-ray of his pelvis, and two psychiatric reports dated 13 May 2015 and 17 June 2015 in which it is stated that he suffered from suicidal ideas because of post-traumatic stress disorder and that he had been hospitalized due to a risk of self-harm. The State party considers that the medical conditions mentioned by the complainant occurred after the end of the domestic asylum proceedings and finds it unlikely that they were caused by the alleged past torture. 4.3 The State party considers that factual inconsistencies in the complainant’s account undermine its plausibility. At the initial asylum interview, the complainant stated that he had resigned from the secret service on 19 June 2011, that he was arrested on 30 August and that he was taken to jail the following day. However, the complainant contradicted himself at the second interview by saying that it was only 10 days after his resignation that policemen had gone to his house. When asked about the contradiction, the complainant answered that the dates must have been incorrectly converted from the Ethiopian calendar. Nevertheless, the State party notes that the interview records, including the dates concerned, were read back to the complainant in Amharic, a language he fully understood, and that he confirmed the accuracy of the records. Thus, the State party considers his explanation of the contradiction not sufficiently convincing. 4.4 The State party takes note of another inconsistency concerning the content of the documents the complainant signed before he was released from prison. At the first hearing, he said that in the documents it was stated that he had agreed to withdraw his resignation and continue his work for the secret service. At the second hearing, he said that he had not read them before signing. When asked to clarify the inconsistency, he explained that it was true that he had not read the documents, but at the first hearing he simply presumed what the documents would have contained, that is, they would refer to his alleged activities for opposition groups and his promise not to continue them. The State party considers that as a former secret service agent with corresponding training, the complainant should have been able to describe in a more precise manner the events that occurred between his resignation and release. 4.5 The State party, referring to the finding by the competent asylum authorities, submits that the complainant’s claims as to his secret service activities in Ethiopia are not plausible. It considers that allegations are not plausible if essential points are not presented in a sufficiently concrete, detailed and differentiated manner, thus conveying the impression that the person has not experienced the events described. The State party also submits that the complainant could not describe his work as a secret service agent in a precise manner and could only give general comments. When asked about the kinds of reports he dealt with as a secret service agent, he could only reply, without providing details, that the reports concerned opposition parties and their supporters. Moreover, the complainant could not provide a physical description of his superiors or of his colleagues. The State party considers that the complainant does not have the necessary knowledge of secret service activities and that his account does not give the impression that he actually experienced the events described. 4.6 In respect of the complainant’s allegation that his membership of Ginbot 7 and his political activities in Switzerland would put him at a risk of being subjected to torture upon his return, the State party considers it unlikely that the complainant has attracted the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. The State party recognizes that the Ethiopian Government designated Ginbot 7 as a terrorist organization in 2011 and thus pays particular attention to its members. However, it submits that the Government takes an interest in someone only when his or her activities are perceived to be a real threat to the existing political system, and it considers that the complainant does not present such a profile. As the complainant was not sought by the Ethiopian authorities at the time of his departure from the country, the State party considers that it is improbable that he has since then become the object of persecution due to his activities in Switzerland. No evidence indicates that he is part of the core of opposition figures in exile to whom the Ethiopian authorities and the security services would pay special attention. The Federal Administrative Court noted that the complainant never, for example, mentioned the arrest of Andargachew Tsege, one of the leaders of Ginbot 7, who was apprehended in Yemen, or demonstrated that he was closely associated with the core group of opposition figures and their activities. 4