CAT/C/50/D/467/2011 insufficient, in the opinion of the Federal Administrative Court, to establish a causal link between the two events. 2.11 The Federal Administrative Court did not assess most of the evidence relating to the first complainant’s political activities in Switzerland for procedural reasons due to the delay in presenting it to the asylum authorities. 2 It stated, however, that there was no reason to assume that the first complainant would be at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention upon return to Yemen due to his political activities in exile. Thus, he appeared to be a mere participant in some of the numerous demonstrations organized by the Southern Democratic Assembly in Switzerland and it would be practically impossible for the Yemeni authorities to identify each of the participants thereof, except for some wellknown opposition leaders. Furthermore, the complainants did not establish that, following recent changes in the social and political situation in Yemen, the activities of the first complainant in Switzerland had led to a significant change of circumstances for them after the completion of the ordinary asylum proceedings. The Federal Administrative Court concluded, therefore, that the execution of the expulsion order in relation to the complainants was lawful, reasonable and possible. 2.12 The complainants submit that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies to obtain redress before the State party’s asylum authorities. They are obliged by law to leave Switzerland; in case of non-compliance, they would be forcibly deported to Yemen. The complaint 3.1 The first complainant submits that he is at a real and imminent risk of being subjected to torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment if he were forcibly returned to Yemen. He adds that, considering the extremely violent and unstable situation in Yemen, his wife and their son would be at an imminent risk of suffering serious harm as well. He argues that, by expelling him and his family to Yemen, Switzerland would violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainants submit that their accounts provided in the framework of the asylum proceedings were detailed, substantiated and credible. Furthermore, these accounts were confirmed by a number of independent reports. 3 They add that the first complainant never claimed to have been a high-ranking member of the Southern Movement. Nevertheless, he was perceived as a critic of the Government by the Yemeni authorities and put under intense pressure. His departure from Yemen in January 2010 was only possible with the help of a friend, significant financial investments and due to his low profile. 3.3 As to the reasoning of the Federal Administrative Court that the summons and the attestation issued by al-Mansoura prison authorities did not specify the reason for the first complainant’s detention (see paragraph 2.9 above), he refers to the reports by the Amnesty International 4 and the United States Department of State, 5 documenting widespread police brutality and torture of suspected supporters of the Southern Movement, as well as of the 2 3 4 5 The complainants did not establish, inter alia, that it was impossible for them to provide this information in the course of the ordinary asylum proceedings and before the decision of the Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland on their appeal of 7 June 2010. See Amnesty International, Yemen: Cracking Down Under Pressure, London, 2010, p. 67, and BBC, “Civil war fears as Yemen celebrates unity”, 21 May 2009, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/8062225.stm. See Amnesty International, “Yemen – Amnesty International Report 2010”, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/yemen/report-2010#. See the United States Department of State, “2009 Human Rights Report: Yemen”, 11 March 2010, available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136083.htm. 5