CAT/C/71/D/865/2018 Satellite Television and Radio network, is not sufficient to conclude that he is a politically active figure whose profile could be perceived as a threat by the Ethiopian regime. The State party further considers that the complainant’s primary activity in the Ethiopian People’s Patriotic Front is of limited importance and consists solely in publicity work aimed at the recruitment of new members. The State party indicates that, in view of the complainant’s particular situation, his involvement in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and his political activities in exile, and even in view of the current situation in Ethiopia, it cannot be claimed with any certainty that the Ethiopian regime has identified him as a serious opponent who could pose a threat to the regime.13 4.10 With regard to the information submitted by the complainant for the first time to the Committee concerning his participation in a rally held on 22 May 2017 in Geneva and a conference organized by the Ethiopian Human Rights and Democracy Task Force in Switzerland and the Ginbot 7 movement in Bern on 18 June 2017, the State party considers that these facts have no bearing on the conclusions of the Swiss authorities. The State party also considers that, neither the letter dated 22 August 2017 attesting to the complainant’s membership of the Ethiopian Human Rights and Democracy Task Force in Switzerland, nor the letter dated 19 February 2018 attesting to his participation in the Ginbot 7 movement, put the Swiss authorities in a position to conclude that there exists a threat to his person. 4.11 With regard to factual inconsistencies in the information provided by the complainant, the State party points out that, during the examination of the complainant’s first application for asylum, the competent Swiss authorities found that his account of the reasons that prompted him to leave his country was not credible. The State party also points out that, before the Committee, the complainant did not challenge the findings of the national authorities regarding the lack of credibility of his statements. 4.12 With regard to the complainant’s state of health, the State party refers to the medical report dated 3 October 2017, according to which the complainant allegedly suffers from, inter alia, depressive episodes, hypertonia and diabetes. The State party recalls that these problems can be treated in Addis Ababa and that the complainant can apply for medical return assistance in order to ensure that he receives treatment during the transition period. The State party considers that the complainant’s state of health is not relevant in determining whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he risks being subjected to torture if returned. It recalls that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the aggravation of the condition of an individual’s physical or mental state of health as a result of deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the Convention. 14 The State party considers that, in this case, contrary to the case of A.N. v. Switzerland,15 the complainant does not appear to suffer from serious health problems that, if he were returned, would lead to a very rapid deterioration in his state of health that would clearly endanger his life or seriously undermine his physical integrity. 4.13 Accordingly, the State party considers that the complainant has not demonstrated that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would face a specific and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention if returned to his country of origin. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 16 May 2019, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 The complainant points out contradictions in the State party’s observations. He notes that, on the one hand, the State party acknowledges that torture appears to be frequently used in Ethiopia and that the human rights situation is a matter of serious concern but, on the other hand, it argues that the human rights situation has improved since the issuance of the Federal Administrative Court decision dated 6 July 2017. The complainant states that, although the general situation in Ethiopia has improved, it is impossible to say whether the efforts to 13 14 15 GE.21-14023 Federal Administrative Court, decision of 6 July 2017, ground 8.2. See, for example, A.A.C. v. Sweden, (CAT/C/37/D/227/2003), para. 7.3. CAT/C/64/D/742/2016, para. 8.6. 5