CAT/C/62/D/710/2015 President of JEM-Switzerland, a post he said he had held since September 2014. Independently of that, the complainant was detained in view of deportation from 14 July 2015 and could not carry out any political activities during that period, as he was prevented from working. Moreover, the State party considers it surprising that, according to a letter from JEM-Switzerland dated 7 September 2015, the complainant was re-elected on 14 September 2015. Attribution of the title is thus not dependent on any particular political commitment. The State party adds that the complainant attached to his second asylum request another letter of confirmation from JEM-Switzerland in which the name of the person concerned had not been updated. This adds to the impression that the letters of confirmation are standardized documents rather than genuine individual certificates. 7.12 In the State party’s view, the complainant’s allegation that the Sudanese authorities, which had been contacted by the Swiss authorities in order to identify the complainant and obtain an identity document, had subsequently registered him as a political activist, is unfounded. He refers to a report in which the United Kingdom Home Office noted that the fact of having applied for asylum abroad was not in and of itself an element of risk.17 7.13 The State party maintains that the Sudanese authorities are able to distinguish between the many Sudanese nationals involved in protests in Europe in order to obtain a residence permit and the real political activists opposed to the regime, who could pose a threat to it and had already attracted the attention of the Sudanese authorities before their departure from the Sudan. 7.14 The State party explains that the complainant’s situation is clearly different from that in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.A. v. Switzerland, which describes a much more public political profile that grew in importance over the years. Firstly, the political activities on which that judgment was based differed significantly from those of the complainant, especially with regard to their scope and duration, as well as the resulting degree of exposure for the persons concerned in respect of the Sudanese authorities. Secondly, the European Court judgment refers to a particular case, which cannot serve as a judgment of principle in deciding on the individual danger faced by all Sudanese persons politically active in Switzerland. The State party indicates that its national authorities took account of the judgment and of the risk profiles referred to in their decisions but noted that the complainant did not have a risk profile. 7.15 The State party concludes that the complainant does not have a particular political profile that would make him likely to be a target for persecution by the Sudanese authorities. 7.16 The State party explains that, in considering the complainant’s claims made during the second and third asylum applications, the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court also took account of the complainant’s behaviour and the statements he made during the first asylum procedure. In its interim ruling of 19 February 2015, the Court emphasized that the complainant had failed to explain why he had purported to have a false nationality and used false documents during the first asylum procedure. It was surprising that, before the Committee, the complainant did not make any reference to those incidents during the first asylum procedure or to the Court’s interim ruling of 19 February 2015. 7.17 The State party maintains that it agrees with the Court’s assessment that persons at risk of persecution have no interest in using the methods used by the complainant, since the use of false identities can mislead the asylum authorities, which may therefore take decisions that endanger the life and health of a person in need of protection. The Court also noted that the documents submitted in support of his second asylum application included a JEM-Switzerland membership card and confirmation from JEM-Switzerland, but that the membership card was in the name of a different person (“Aref Abdullaha”) to that mentioned in the confirmation (“Abdalla Aare”). To date, the complainant has not explained this inconsistency. 17 8 Country Information and Guidance — Sudan: Failed Asylum Seekers, Home Office, United Kingdom, August 2016, (para. 3.1.2). GE.18-01489