CAT/C/60/D/639/2014 2014. The complainant received a letter ordering him to leave Switzerland by 18 November 2014. 2.9 The Tribunal considered that the complainant had failed to credibly demonstrate that he was from and lived in North Darfur. Referring to its prior decision BVGE 2013/5, the Tribunal also considered that a relocation of people from Darfur to Khartoum was possible. Regarding the complainant’s political activities, the Tribunal considered that, according to its jurisprudence, political activities in exile only lead to recognition of refugee quality if political persecution in the country of origin is the highly probable result of such activity. The Tribunal considered that, despite his political activities, the complainant was most probably not monitored by the Sudanese authorities and that he would not be at risk of being subjected to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment if returned to the Sudan. 2.10 The complainant argues that, contrary to the Tribunal’s determination, he clearly demonstrated his origins from Darfur and the events that led to his escape. He submits that he never possessed any identity document and that he informed the authorities of the State party thereof at the start of his asylum procedure. He refers to article 7 of the Swiss asylum law, 10 according to which “any person who applies for asylum must prove or at least credibly demonstrate their refugee status”, and argues that this article does not require strict proof. In that regard, he recalls that he submitted a confirmation of residence issued by the local authorities of Kutum, as well as the false passport with which he had travelled to Switzerland, in order not to hide anything from the Swiss authorities. He submits that he described his village and the city of Kutum according to his faculties, limited by the fact that he was poorly educated. The complainant also submits that he described his father’s functions and activities to the best of his knowledge, considering that he was still young at the time of the events, but that he was still able to describe his killing with details and in a concise way. 2.11 In regard to the possible alternative flight, the complainant submits that internal relocation is not a valid option for him, as he runs the risk of being persecuted by the Sudanese authorities, which are present throughout the territory of the Sudan, and not by the rebels in the case addressed by the Tribunal in its decision BVGE 2013/5. As an example, the complainant refers to the reports of arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions and ill-treatment of detainees, including reports on the detention of a large number of persons living in Khartoum, following the attack launched by the Justice and Equality Movement on Omburman.11 2.12 Regarding the Tribunal’s argument that the complainant’s fear of persecution due to his political activities in exile is unfounded, the complainant submits that it contradicts the European Court of Human Rights judgment in A.A. v. Switzerland. In that case, the Court clarified that those at risk of persecution include not only high-profile political opponents, but also those merely suspected of rejecting the current Sudanese regime and supporting opposition movements. 12 The Court considered that the Sudanese authorities register persons who are politically active abroad, in particular those associated with the Sudan Liberation Army and take part to its international meetings in Geneva. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the complainant, who is not a member of the Sudan Liberation Army, does not have a prominent political profile in the sense of the Court’s jurisprudence. The complainant considers that such conclusion is inconsistent with the Court’s ruling in A.A. v. Switzerland. He claims that, according to that ruling, his political activities are relevant and should have been taken into account by State party’s authorities as a source of is a real, foreseeable and personal risk for him. 2.13 He also claims that this argument is not consistent with the ruling of the Tribunal in its decision BVGE 2013/21. In that decision, the Tribunal considered that the Sudanese authorities only become aware of people who are politically involved or criticize the Government of the Sudan, or are suspected of supporting an opposition movement. 13 10 11 12 13 Available from www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995092/201610010000/142.31.pdf. The author does not provide a specific date. See A.A. v. Switzerland, European Court of Human Rights decision dated 7 January 2014, No. 58802/12, para. 40. BVGE 2013/21, unpublished E. 10.5 (BVGer E-1979/2008, 31 May 2013). 3