CAT/C/48/D/414/2010 Administrative Court, which was made following a detailed examination of the case, but rather disputes the assessment of the facts and evidence by the Court. The State party submits that it will demonstrate the validity of the Court’s decision, in the light of article 3 of the Convention, the jurisprudence of the Committee and its general comments, and maintains that the deportation of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the Convention by Switzerland. 4.4 The State party submits that according to article 3 of the Convention, the 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.7 The existence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that an individual might be subjected to torture upon his return to his country, and additional grounds must exist for the risk of torture to qualify under the meaning of article 3 as “foreseeable, real and personal”. 4.5 Regarding the general human rights situation in Ethiopia, the State party submits that the elections in Ethiopia in May 2005 and August 2005 have strengthened the representation of opposition parties in the Parliament. It recognizes that, although the Ethiopian Constitution explicitly recognizes human rights, there are many instances of arbitrary arrests and detentions, particularly of members of opposition parties. In addition, there is a lack of an independent judiciary. However, being a member or supporter of an opposition political party does not, in principle, lead to a risk of persecution. It is different for persons who hold a prominent position in an opposition political party. 8 In the light of the above information, the competent Swiss asylum authorities have adopted differentiated practices to determine the risk of persecution. Individuals who are suspected by the Ethiopian authorities to be members of the Oromo Liberation Front or the Ogaden National Liberation Front are considered at risk of persecution. With regard to persons belonging to other opposition groups, such as CUD, the risk of persecution is assessed on case-by-case basis, in accordance with the above criteria. With regard to monitoring political activities in exile, the State party submits that according to the information available to it, the Ethiopian diplomatic or consular missions lack the personnel and structural resources to systematically monitor the political activities of opposition members in Switzerland. However, active and/or important members of the opposition, as well as activists of organizations who are campaigning for the use of violence, run the risk of being identified and registered and, therefore, of being persecuted if returned. 4.6 The State party notes that the complainant does not claim to have suffered torture, or to have been arrested or detained by Ethiopian authorities. 4.7 As to the political activities in which the complainant engaged in his home country, the State party submits that the complainant appears to have been interested in politics, but that the work he had actually done in the context of the May 2005 elections was not of a 7 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 the Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.2, and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5. 8 The State party refers to the UK Border and Immigration Agency’s Operational Guidance Note on Ethiopia of March 2009, para. 3.7.9. 5