CAT/C/53/D/458/2011 proceedings and the allegations of her repeated detention and detailed information on torture were submitted only after the Refugee Appeals Board hearing, although there were previous opportunities to submit such information. The Committee notes the medical reports submitted by the complainant and the argument by the State party that the conclusions in the Amnesty International medical group report of 2 June 2009 cannot be accepted as a proof of torture. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that the State party has failed to carry out an independent medical assessment of her allegations of torture and the State party’s response that such an examination was neither requested by the complainant nor deemed necessary by the State party owing to the late presentation of information about torture and an overall lack of credibility of the complainant’s story. 9.5 Regarding the above observations by the parties, the Committee recalls that illtreatment suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account, the relevant question before the Committee being whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Ethiopia.13 The Committee considers that, even if it were assumed that the complainant was tortured by the State authorities in the past, it does not automatically follow that, at least seven years after the alleged events occurred, she would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia.14 9.6 The Committee notes with concern the reports on human rights violations in Ethiopia,15 including the use of torture and the information submitted by the complainant about the persecution of Oromo Liberation Front activists. It also recalls its concluding observations of 2010, issued in connection with the initial report of Ethiopia, in which it states that it was “deeply concerned about numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations concerning the routine use of torture” by government agents against political dissidents and opposition party members, students, alleged terrorists and alleged supporters of violent separatist groups, such as the Oromo Liberation Front.16 The Committee notes the arguments of the complainant that she is an active member of the Oromo Liberation Front and the submission of the State party questioning the veracity of this information. On the basis of the information before it, however, the Committee concludes that the complainant failed to provide evidence of her political activity of such significance that would attract the interest of the authorities. The information before the Committee does not show that the complainant has attracted the attention of the Ethiopian authorities since the moment she left the country. 9.7 In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to establish her claim that she would be at a personal, foreseeable and real risk of torture upon being returned to Ethiopia. 9.8 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Ethiopia by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 13 14 15 16 See, for example, communications No. 61/1996, X.Y. and Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2; and No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision of 14 November 2012, para. 7.7. See, for example, communication No. 431/2010, Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 May 2013, para. 7.7. See, for example, A/HRC/WG.6/19/ETH/2. See also Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2013: The State of the World's Human Rights (London, 2013). See CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, para. 10. 11