CAT/C/71/D/865/2018 that the situation in that country has changed considerably since the end of the state of emergency and the release of hundreds of political prisoners. The Committee recalls that the existence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of origin is not, in itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of being tortured. 24 Therefore, the mere fact that human rights violations occur in Ethiopia is not in itself sufficient to conclude that the complainant’s removal to that country would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.25 The Committee notes that it appears from the case file that the State party’s authorities took into account the relevant background information when examining the complainant’s asylum applications. It finds that in the present case the complainant has not proved that his political activities are significant enough to attract the interest of the authorities of his country of origin 26 and concludes that the information provided does not demonstrate that he would be personally at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he were to return to Ethiopia. 7.7 The Committee observes that the complainant has not demonstrated that he has been tortured or ill-treated in the recent past and has not produced any evidence that might cast doubt on the conclusions of the Swiss authorities with regard to their refusal of his application for asylum.27 7.8 The Committee notes that the complainant has submitted a medical report dated 3 October 2017 in support of his communication, in which it is stated that he suffers from, inter alia, depressive episodes, hypertonia and diabetes and that a return to Ethiopia would deny him access to adequate health care and violate his rights under the Convention. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that these health problems can be treated in Addis Ababa and that the complainant has the possibility of applying for assistance to ensure that he receives treatment during the transition period. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant’s situation, including his physical and psychological condition, has been thoroughly examined by the Swiss authorities, who have found that there are no major risks that the complaint’s rights under the Convention would be infringed upon if he were returned to Ethiopia. 7.9 In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that he would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if he were returned to Ethiopia. 8. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 24 25 26 27 8 A.M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/841/2017), para. 7.7. See the following decisions on the expulsion of persons to Ethiopia: H.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/49/D/432/2010), para. 7.5; R.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/51/D/426/2010), para. 9.7; X. v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.6; E.E.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/54/D/491/2012), para. 7.7; M.F. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/59/D/658/2015), para. 7.7; T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.7; and X. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/765/2016), para. 7.8. Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/738/2016), para. 7.6. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, para. 49 (b). GE.21-14023