CAT/C/71/D/904/2018 men, which, in her case, may raise doubts as to the fairness of the proceedings. She explains that it was indicated in her medical/psychological report that she insisted on the importance of meeting with female professionals owing to her distrust of men. The Committee considers, however, that the complainant failed to show that she had explicitly requested the asylum authorities not to conduct the proceedings in the presence of men or to find other ways to accommodate her needs in this regard. 7.8 The Committee notes that the complainant has had ample opportunities to provide supporting evidence and further details of her claims, but that the evidence she provided did not allow the national asylum authorities to conclude that her past experiences of arrest and torture would expose her to a risk of being subjected to torture if she were returned to Ethiopia. In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant’s sequelae were not contested by the national authorities, but that the Migration Court held that the medical/psychological report alone did not establish the origin of those sequelae. Therefore, and in the light of the inconsistencies detected in her oral statements, the State party held that the medical/psychological report could not confirm the complainant’s narrative. Taking also into consideration that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture, 7 the Committee considers that the domestic authorities may have been relying heavily on the complainant’s negative credibility assessment even though some inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements may have originated in translation errors or may have been reasonably explained. 7.9 In any event, the Committee recalls that ill-treatment suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account, the relevant question before the Committee being whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Ethiopia. 8 The Committee considers that, even if it were to disregard the alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s account of her past experiences in Ethiopia and accept her statements as true, the complainant has not provided any information credibly indicating that she would presently be of interest to the authorities of Ethiopia. In this regard, the Committee observes that the complainant did not profess, either to the national authorities or to the Committee, to have taken part in political activities in Ethiopia. Nor did she claim to have been engaged in political activities of diaspora groups during her stay in Sweden. In addition, the fact that the complainant was able to leave Ethiopia without any incident also shows the lack of interest of the State authorities in her whereabouts, especially because she could not establish that she had left the country illegally. Furthermore, she did not submit any evidence to demonstrate that the Ethiopian authorities are looking for her, either on the grounds of past events or for any other reason. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that her presumed past affiliation with the Ogaden National Liberation Front based on the membership of her relatives in the organization would be of enough significance to attract the real interest of the Ethiopian authorities. 7.10 The Committee is aware of the past reports of human rights violations, including the use of torture, in Ethiopia9 and the crackdown on political dissidents and arrests of bloggers and journalists.10 Nonetheless, it recalls that, for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is returned, considering that past arrests do not as such represent substantial grounds for believing that such a risk is present. In view of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is 7 8 9 10 8 Ibid., para. 42. See also Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.3; and G.E. v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/725/2016), para. 7.6. See, e.g., S.S.B. v. Denmark (CAT/C/60/D/602/2014), para. 8.7; and Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 8.7. See, e.g., the Committee’s concluding observations on the initial report of Ethiopia (CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, paras. 10–14); Human Rights Watch, “We Are Like the Dead”: Torture and Other Human Rights Abuses in Jail Ogaden, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia (2018); and Amnesty International, Beyond Law Enforcement: Human Rights Violations by Ethiopian Security Forces in Amhara and Oromia (2020). Human Rights Watch, “Such a Brutal Crackdown”: Killings and Arrests in Response to Ethiopia’s Oromo Protests (2016).