CAT/C/71/D/866/2018 political opponents in exile by means of modern information technologies. It can be assumed that Ethiopian nationals who are active in opposition organizations abroad can be identified and are known to Ethiopian security services from the time they arrive at an airport. The State party notes however that Ethiopian security services focus on individuals who, rather than engage in low-profile political protest, exercise functions or activities that make them serious political opponents who could pose danger to the regime in place and whose activities go beyond low-profile protest. The State party notes that numerous events of Ethiopian opposition are organized in Switzerland and that group photos, sometimes of hundreds of persons, are published in the media. Even if Ethiopian authorities are aware of these activities, they cannot identify and put under surveillance each participant. Moreover, Ethiopian authorities must be aware that many Ethiopian nationals living in Switzerland for economic reasons try to obtain a long-term residence card by participating in opposition events. The Ethiopian authorities are only interested in identifying individuals whose activities are perceived as a concrete threat to the political system in place. 4.8 The State party believes that in the present case, nothing indicates that the complainant is exposed in a particular manner because of her activities in Switzerland. Neither her declarations, nor the evidence submitted to the Committee are sufficient to conclude that she exercises qualified political activities or that she assumes public tasks that imply responsibilities. Her political activities are marginal. The commercial registers of the Ethiopian Human Rights and Democracy Task Force in Switzerland and the Association des Éthiopiens en Suisse do not mention the complainant as a member of either executive office. The letters that confirm the complainant’s membership in Ginbot 7, the Task Force and the association do not prove that Ethiopian authorities have taken an interest in the complainant. The letters of Ginbot 7 and the association do not provide any indication of concrete activities in which the complainant has participated, but rather are generic texts with general information that do not demonstrate that the complainant has assumed a particular engagement. The letter of Ginbot 7 even refers to the complainant in the masculine form. While the Task Force letter states that the complainant is a founding member of the women’s activist group, it describes her responsibilities within the organization in a very general manner; it does not appear that she has been particularly exposed in public. The complainant’s allegation that she has been exposed during public events and has been in contact with high-ranking members of the opposition is very general. It does not appear from the photos provided by the complainant that she stood out particularly in the group of demonstrators or the anonymous group of event participants. Her private photos with Obang Meto, Bezuneh Tsige and Berhanu Nega are not available online. Regarding the availability on Facebook and YouTube of photos and videos of demonstrations and other public events in which she has taken part, the State party underlines that while Ethiopian authorities must be aware of these events, it is not certain to what extent they have identified the complainant. Even if they have identified her, there is no reason to believe that they have taken any interest in her and believe that she belongs to the “hard core” of the opposition. The State party concludes that the complainant cannot be considered as a danger to the Ethiopian regime based on her activities in Switzerland. The activities are too marginal to substantiate a claim that the author faces a personal, actual and serious risk of being subjected to torture if she were to be returned to Ethiopia. 4.9 The State party submits that an allegation of risk of torture is not substantiated if the complainant fails to provide specific details on essential points and thus to prove that she has truly experienced the described events. A claim is not deemed credible if, on essential points, it is contrary to logic and general experience. The asylum authorities concluded that the complainant’s account of the circumstances surrounding her departure from Ethiopia, the obtention of a visa for Switzerland, the renewal of her passport in Dubai and the loss of her passport were not credible. It is illogical and contrary to general experience that while being aware of the risks she was running, the complainant left Ginbot 7 flyers in plain sight at her workplace. Neither is it credible that her partner, after discovering that she was implicated in the opposition movement, threatening her, ill-treating her and forbidding her to leave home, had left her without surveillance, letting her escape, but had later denounced her to the authorities. 7