CAT/C/60/D/639/2014 new evidence in his complaint to the Committee that could modify the decisions taken by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Tribunal. 4.2 As regards the evidence on the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the Sudan, the State party notes that, in its 10 October 2014 decision, the Federal Administrative Tribunal determined that there is no generalized context of violence in the Sudan outside the Darfur region. 18 According to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, the existence of an alternative flight has been admitted for refugees from Darfur, as the region of Khartoum is considered as safe. 19 4.3 The State party submits that the complainant has failed to demonstrate credibly that he is under a personal, real and concrete risk to be subjected to treatment that would violate the Convention if returned to a region outside the Darfur region. 4.4 The State party also submits that the complainant has not alleged to have suffered torture or mistreatment in the past. He has even admitted that he never had any personal problems with the Sudanese authorities and that he has never been arrested.20 4.5 The State party notes that the complainant has denied to have been involved in any political activity in the Sudan, 21 and that he was not a member of any rebel organization in Darfur as he and his father were “against that”.22 4.6 The State party notes that the complainant has claimed to have participated in various meetings and protests against the Government of the Sudan. It also notes the complainant’s claim that he is a member of the Justice and Equality Movement. The State party submits that the national authorities have examined those arguments and determined that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the complainant is under a risk of suffering treatment that would amount to a violation of the Convention in case of return to the Sudan.23 4.7 The State party notes that the author has no specific political profile to be a target of persecution by the Government of the Sudan. Before his departure from the Sudan, he was a farmer and had never been involved in any political activity. The State party submits that it is not possible that the Sudanese authorities, even if they became aware in the future of his political activities, suddenly would consider the complainant as a “danger” and persecute him. 4.8 The State party argues that the complainant’s alleged membership to the Justice and Equality Movement or the fact that he has a certificate from an organization of people in exile does not put him at risk of persecution. The State party adds that there are numerous certificates from this kind of organizations in Europe that can be obtained easily. The complainant has admitted that he had no particular role during the demonstrations in which he participated.24 He never made any speech during the demonstrations, but only chanted slogans.25 4.9 The State party considers that the Sudanese authorities are able to distinguish between those numerous Sudanese participating in political activities in Europe in the hope of obtaining a residence permit from the political activists who may pose a threat to the regime and who have already been registered by the Sudanese authorities before leaving the Sudan. The State party submits that the national authorities have determined that the author does not belong to any group of active Sudanese in foreign countries that would be the target or of interest to the Sudanese authorities. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The State party refers to the decision of the Federal Administrative Tribunal dated 10 October 2014, para. 8.5, p. 17. Ibid., para. 6.3, p. 13. The State party refers to the transcript of the hearing dated 22 April 2010, p. 7; and that of the hearing dated 17 December 2013, pp. 9-10. The State party refers to the transcript of the hearing dated 17 December 2013, p. 10. Ibid., p. 13. The State party refers to the decision of the Office for Migration, 7 January 2014, para.5; and the decision of the Federal Administrative Tribunal, 10 October 2014, para. 6.4. The State party refers to the transcript of the hearing dated 17 December 2013, p. 14. Ibid., p. 16. 5