CAT/C/50/D/467/2011 ordinary criminal detainees in Yemen, and submits that he would have been subjected to serious ill-treatment even if he had not been wanted for political reasons. 3.4 The complainants submit that the risk of their persecution in Yemen is aggravated by the first complainant’s political activities in Switzerland. He is a member of the Southern Democratic Assembly in Switzerland and his name and photographs have been linked to the Assembly and published on the Internet. Furthermore, he holds an important position in the canton of Fribourg. The Swiss authorities acknowledge in the judgement of the Federal Administrative Court of 27 May 2011 that the Southern Democratic Assembly is or has been closely monitored by the Yemeni authorities. They state that persons identified as leaders of this movement may be at risk of persecution in case of return. The Federal Administrative Court considered, however, that the first complainant’s activities and position were not of sufficient prominence to trigger a well-founded fear of persecution. The first complainant argues that there are reasons to believe that he will be apprehended upon his return, due to his past experiences in Yemen and because he comes from a politically active family. It should be assumed, therefore, that his family name alone is sufficient to trigger the suspicion of the Yemeni authorities. 3.5 The complainants argue that the current political situation in Yemen is extremely unstable and is characterized by high insecurity and violence. 6 Since President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s injury and subsequent departure, protests have continued. Whether he will return or whether there will be a regime change remains unclear. They add that the Southern Mobility Movement has played a crucial role in the organization and perpetuation of protests. 7 They submit that it should be assumed that if the current regime remains in place, members of the Southern Movement would be at a real and imminent risk of being exposed to reprisals. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 25 January 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It recalled the facts of the complaint and notes the first complainant’s arguments before the Committee that he would run a personal, real and serious risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. He did not present any new elements that would call into question the decisions of the State party’s asylum authorities but rather disputed their assessment of the plausibility of his allegations. 4.2 According to article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 8 The existence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in itself a sufficient basis for 6 7 8 6 See Human Rights Watch, “Days of bloodshed in Aden”, 9 March 2011, available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/03/09/days-bloodshed-aden-0. See the Jamestown Foundation, “Filling the void: the Southern Mobility Movement in South Yemen”, 25 April 2011, available at http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=37845. The State party refers to the Committee’s General Comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44), annex IX), paras. 6 and 8; and to the Committee’s jurisprudence in Communication No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.2, and Communication No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5.