CAT/C/53/D/520/2012 presumably took place in 2010, since that is when the letters were first presented to the State party’s authorities. However, no information is provided in the communication concerning the husband’s current status or attempts by any family or friends in Ethiopia to ascertain whether or not he is still detained in a known or unknown location. Considering that, according to the complainant, her husband had been detained and released on a number of previous other occasions, the State party submits that some attempt should have been made to provide current information to the Committee. The State party maintains that the allegation that the complainant’s husband was detained in 2010, for which no probative evidence was submitted, in no way supports her claim that she will be detained, and tortured and killed if she is returned to Ethiopia. 4.17 As to the complainant’s argument that her status as an ethnic Oromo is one of the reasons why she would allegedly be targeted by the Ethiopian authorities, the State party notes that at the domestic level she stated that she had not been targeted because of her ethnicity in the past. The State party submits that, in those circumstances, the complainant’s Oromo ethnicity would not, in itself, put her at foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. The State party takes note of several reports on the human rights situation in Ethiopia, including the Committee’s recent concluding observations on the human rights situation in Ethiopia.15 Nevertheless, although the human rights situation in Ethiopia is problematic, the State party submits that it is insufficient in itself to lend credence to the complainant’s allegations.16 4.18 In light of the above, the State party submits that the complainant in the present communication has failed to establish that she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Ethiopia. Consequently, the present communication is manifestly illfounded and inadmissible. 4.19 In the alternative, if the communication is declared admissible, the State party requests that the Committee conclude, on the basis of the information provided, that the prsent communication is without merit. The complainant has failed to establish that she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if she were returned to Ethiopia. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 In reply to the State party’s observations, on 30 April 2013 the complainant submitted that none of the remedies mentioned by the State party, which she supposedly had to exhaust, constitute an effective remedy. In this connection, she notes that in 2011 she tried to file for a judicial review to appeal the negative decision of the RPD dated 24 January 2011; however it was dismissed by the Federal Court on 1 June 2011without even a hearing. She further notes that 80 to 85 per cent of the “immigration appeals (judicial reviews)” to the Federal Court are not granted leave and that that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the remedy. She also notes that the State party acknowledged in its 15 16 CAT/C/ETH/CO/1. The State party makes reference to the Committee’s decision in its communication No. 393/2009, E.T. v. Switzerland (see footnote 11), para. 7.5., where the Committee stated that it “is concerned at the many reports of human rights violations, including the use of torture in Ethiopia, but recalls that for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is returned.” Since the complainant in that case had not established a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured, the Committee concluded that it would not be a violation of article 3 of the Convention to return her to Ethiopia. The same concerns were raised and the same conclusion was also reached in communication No. 414/2010, N.T.W. v. Switzerland (see footnote 11), para. 7.5. 9