CAT/C/62/D/710/2015 complainant must identify special distinguishing features in his or her case that could enable the authorities of the State party to foresee that he or she would be treated in a manner incompatible with article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 14 With regard to the situation of political opponents of the Sudanese Government, the Court held that the situation was very precarious and that certain categories of the population, including members of opposition political movements, persons suspected of maintaining links with the rebel groups in Darfur, students, journalists and human rights defenders, were at particular risk in the Sudan. Furthermore, not only high-profile opponents, but anyone who opposed or was suspected of opposing the current regime was at risk of ill-treatment. According to the Court, it was acknowledged that the Sudanese Government monitored the activities of political opponents abroad. 7.6 The State party also refers to recent reports on the use of torture against political opponents in the Sudan.15 It refers to the Amnesty International Report 2014/15 on the State of the World’s Human Rights, where it is noted that “The Government continued to use the National Intelligence and Security Services and other security forces to arbitrarily detain perceived opponents of the ruling National Congress Party, to censor media and to shut down public forums and protests. The arbitrary detention of activists, human rights defenders and political opposition figures continued unabated.” 7.7 However, the State party maintains that the complainant has not provided any individual elements showing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he were returned to the Sudan. The State party explains that the claimant has not provided any explanation of the circumstances of his detention in the Sudan in 2005 and 2008 and has failed to produce evidence to support his allegations that he was tortured in detention. During the second asylum proceedings, the Federal Office for Migration (now the State Secretariat for Migration) and the Federal Administrative Court considered the complainant’s claims in detail, noting important contradictions, and concluded that they were not credible. In addition, the State party points out that the fact that the complainant had misled the national authorities by claiming that he was a citizen of Eritrea constitutes, in the present case, an additional indication that the claims of torture, in particular, were untrue (see paragraph 7.1 above). 7.8 In respect of the complainant’s political activities in the Sudan, the State party maintains that the complainant describes those activities in very general terms without substantiating them. The evidence presented by the author does not include any concrete evidence. The State party concludes that it cannot be considered that the applicant had engaged in political activities in the Sudan. 7.9 With regard to the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland in JEMSwitzerland, his post as personal secretary to the President and his participation in various conferences and events, the State party maintains that his story remains vague and general. It considers that, contrary to the applicant’s claim, the United Kingdom authorities did not identify the fact of being a member of JEM as, in itself, constituting a risk of treatment prohibited by article 3 of the Convention. 16 As the hearing shows, the complainant’s activities are in keeping with those of an ordinary member of JEM-Switzerland and are mainly limited to the activities of an observer and photographer at meetings, including his passive participation in the 2013 meeting of Geneva Call. 7.10 The State party maintains that the complainant only criticized the Sudanese Government on Facebook, did not contribute to political programmes broadcast on the LoRa radio station, and only participated in a meeting of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue that was held on the premises of the radio station. 7.11 As concerns the post of personal secretary to the President of JEM-Switzerland, the State party recalls that, during the second asylum proceedings, the complainant stated that he was an ordinary member of the organization. It was only during the third asylum application that the complainant claimed to have been appointed personal secretary to the 14 15 16 GE.18-01489 A.A. v. Switzerland, judgment of 7 January 2014, app. No. 58802/12, para. 40. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 — Sudan, United States Department of State. Country Information and Guidance — Sudan: “Sur place” activity in the UK (paras. 3.1.3 and 6.2.5). 7