CAT/C/62/D/688/2015 real and personal risk (para. 6).8 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by the organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in each case. 9 8.5 The complainant claims that in Ethiopia he could be persecuted or subjected to torture because of his past involvement with and resignation from the secret service, and his membership of Ginbot 7 and political activities in Switzerland. He refers to the torture that he underwent in Ethiopia after resigning from the secret service. He adds that Ginbot 7 was declared to be a terrorist organization in 2011 and that even ordinary members of Ginbot 7 may be arbitrarily arrested and subjected to abuse in prison. 8.6 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been arrested and severely ill-treated in prison because of his resignation from the secret service of the Ethiopian Government and that, following the conclusion of the national asylum procedure, he submitted medical reports which indicate that his hip injury could have been sustained in the manner consistent with his account of torture. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the complainant did not provide either a sufficiently precise description of his work for the secret service or tangible evidence demonstrating that he actually had worked for the secret service, and that his accounts did not demonstrate knowledge of how the secret service functioned. In this connection, the Committee notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s statements contained factual inconsistencies about the time that had elapsed between his resignation and his arrest and about the content of documents he signed prior to his release that undermine the credibility of his allegations. The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland do not constitute lasting and intense activity that could be considered a serious threat to the Ethiopian Government. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that the Ethiopian authorities do monitor opposition members abroad, but observes that he has not elaborated on this claim or presented any evidence to support it. It also takes note of psychiatric reports concerning his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and the alleged lack of psychological composure during the asylum interview. 8.7 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant currently runs a risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Ethiopia. 10 The Committee notes that the complainant has had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and more details about his claims, including medical certificates, at the national level to the Federal Office of Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, but that the evidence provided did not allow the national asylum authorities to conclude that the purported past exposure to torture would expose him to a risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia. The Committee observes that the complainant did not submit that the national asylum proceedings had suffered from any irregularities. Accordingly, the Committee observes that the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence of his work for the secret service and to adequately substantiate that his participation in political activities in Switzerland, including critical publications and poems presented on ESAT and ordinary membership of Ginbot 7, would be of such significance as would attract the real interest of the Ethiopian authorities, nor has he submitted any evidence to demonstrate that the Ethiopian authorities are looking for him or that he would face a personal risk of being tortured if returned to his country of origin. The Committee is concerned at the many reports of human rights violations, including the use of torture, in Ethiopia 11 and the crackdown on political 8 9 10 11 See also A.R. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002, para. 7.3; Kalonzo v. Canada (CAT/C/48/D/343/2008), para. 9.3; X v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.3; and W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2012), para. 8.4. See general comment No. 1, para. 9; T.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/46/D/375/2009), para. 8.7; and Alp v. Denmark (CAT/C/52/D/466/2011), para. 8.3. See, for example, G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7. The Committee notes that Ethiopia is also a State party to the Convention, and recalls its concluding observations (CAT/C/ETH/CO/1) adopted in 2010, paras. 10–14. 9