CAT/C/48/D/414/2010 nature to make him a person of interest for the Ethiopian regime. The State party reiterates the Federal Administrative Court argumentation that the complainant has not presented in a convincing manner that he would have been persecuted by the authorities after those elections. The Court had based its conclusion on the contradictions between the statements of the complainant of 18 July 2006 and of 26 July 20069 and on the fact that it was not clear from the case file whether the complainant had participated in the 2005 demonstrations. In view of the above the domestic asylum authorities had concluded that the complainant could not present credible evidence that he was wanted by the authorities after the 2005 elections due to his political activities or that the Ethiopian authorities would have taken any action against him because of his activities. The State party maintains that this conclusion was emphasized by the fact that the complainant could not explain what identity he used to fly to Europe (from Khartoum, Sudan to Frankfurt, Germany, then to Milan, Italy). 4.8 The State party notes that the complainant claims before the Committee to be a founding member of KINIJIT Switzerland. However, before the domestic authorities, he had stated that he became a member of this organization, which was founded before his arrival in Switzerland, in August 2006. According to the complainant, he was an active member of KINIJIT Switzerland, he participated in particular in some demonstrations and in meetings of KINIJIT Switzerland and contributed to the cyberethiopia.com forum between December 2008 and February 2009. The complainant had not claimed to have engaged in activities going beyond those or to have occupied a leadership position in the organization. The State party notes that the complainant’s claims were the subject of extensive analysis by the Federal Administrative Court and that the latter noted in particular his extremely limited political involvement in Switzerland. The State party also submits that, in view of their limited resources, the Ethiopian authorities are focusing all their attention on individuals whose activities go beyond “the usual behaviour”, or who exercise a particular function or activity that could pose a threat to the Ethiopian regime. However, the complainant presented no political profile when he arrived in Switzerland and the State party deems it reasonable to exclude that he has subsequently developed such a profile. The State party maintains that the documents produced by the complainant do not show activity in Switzerland able to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. The fact that the complainant is identified in photographs of participants in certain demonstrations and has published texts on the Internet is not sufficient to demonstrate a risk of persecution if returned. The State party maintains that numerous political demonstrations take place in Switzerland, that photographs or video recordings showing sometimes hundreds of people are made publicly available by the relevant media and that it is unlikely that the Ethiopian authorities are able to identify each person, or that they even have knowledge of the affiliation of the complainant with the above organization. 4.9 The State party submits that there is no evidence that the Ethiopian authorities have opened criminal proceedings against the complainant or that they have adopted other measures towards him. Accordingly, the State party’s immigration authorities did not qualify as convincing the claim that the complainant has a function within the Ethiopian diaspora in Switzerland able to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. In other words, the complainant has not established that if returned to Ethiopia he would run a risk of ill-treatment because of his political activities in Switzerland. 4.10 The State party submits that, in the light of the above, there is no indication that there are substantial grounds for fearing that the complainant’s return to Ethiopia would 9 It appears from the annexes to the State party’s submission that the complainant gave different versions of his political involvement as well as of why he was being sought and by whom (members of a political party or the police). 6