CAT/C/71/D/865/2018 security services if they are identified as critical of the current regime. The complainant refers to a report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which concluded that members of the Church who were politically active risked arrest. 3 The complainant gives several examples of members of Ginbot 7 who have been arrested and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or even life imprisonment or the death penalty. He refers to a resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 18 May 2017, calling for a United Nations-led independent inquiry into the murder of several prominent figures opposed to the Ethiopian Government.4 3.2 The complainant adds that the current regime in Ethiopia has tightened its grip since October 2016, when it declared a state of emergency that was later extended by the authorities until August 2017. 3.3 The complainant states that he has demonstrated an unequivocal political consciousness and a clearly dissident attitude towards the Ethiopian authorities. He considers that his removal to Ethiopia would constitute a violation by Switzerland of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication in a note verbale dated 22 October 2018. 4.2 The State party first recalls the facts and the proceedings brought before the Swiss authorities and courts. It also analyses the present case in the light of the elements that must be taken into account to ascertain the existence of a personal, present and serious danger of the complainant being subjected to torture upon deportation to his country of origin: (a) evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations in the country of origin; (b) any claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and independent evidence to support those claims; (c) the political activity of the complainant within or outside the country of origin; (d) any evidence as to the credibility of the complainant; and (e) any factual inconsistencies in the complainant’s claims.5 4.3 The State party considers that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person will be subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin. The Committee must establish whether the complainant is personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 6 Additional grounds must be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as foreseeable, real and personal for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Convention. 7 The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.8 4.4 The State party indicates that the Federal Administrative Court noted in its decision of 6 July 2017 that the human rights situation in Ethiopia could endanger activists and members of the opposition, including those living in exile. The State party emphasizes, however, that the Court called into question the likelihood and extent of the possible surveillance of opponents in Switzerland, especially with regard to persons who apparently pose no threat to the Ethiopian regime. The State party adds that the Court carried out a detailed analysis of the political character and historical background of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, where the complainant is a priest, and observed that the Church has two synods, of which one is close to the Ethiopian regime and the other is close to the opposition. The State party indicates that it is not clear from the sources at its disposal, nor 3 4 5 6 7 8 GE.21-14023 Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, “Ethiopia: Treatment of member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC) by authorities (2011–July 2014)”, 5 August 2014. European Parliament, resolution of 18 May 2017 on Ethiopia, notably the case of Dr. Merera Gudina, Official Journal of the European Union, No. C 307, 30 August 2018. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 49. K.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para. 10.2. Ibid., para. 10.5; and J.U.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/21/D/100/1997), paras. 6.3 and 6.5. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1 (1997), para. 6, replaced by the Committee’s general comment No. 4 on 6 December 2017. 3