CAT/C/54/D/491/2012 5.2 The complainant reiterates her allegations that there is no contradiction in being a member of Mecha Tulema and a sympathizer of OLF because they are closely related. Furthermore, the difference in her statements during the asylum proceedings was due to misunderstandings between her and the interpreter. 5.3 The complainant argues that in her interview of 30 August 2007 she explained that she had decided to leave her country of origin for multiple reasons, in particular the encounter with the police officer who had put her in detention and tortured her in 2004 and who had intimidated her by telling her that he knew that she was a member of OLF. She ran away because she was afraid that he would arrest her again. In addition, she states that she was also intimidated by the fact that, in 2006, her brother had been beaten by a police officer because he was Oromo. 5.4 During that interview, she mentioned that she had a scar on the left side of her torso as a consequence of the torture that she had suffered while in detention in Ethiopia. She stated that the doctor at the asylum reception centre in Switzerland had noticed it and asked her about it. If the authorities doubt her account, they had the opportunity to carry out a medical examination. In that regard, she claims that the State party is better placed both financially and logistically than an asylum seeker who has just arrived in a new country to ascertain all relevant facts. 5.5 She holds that, in the light of all that she experienced in Ethiopia prior to her departure, including the fact that she is of Oromo ethnicity, and her current opposition political activities in exile, it should be concluded that she has a sufficiently high profile as to be at risk of persecution by the Ethiopian authorities if returned. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee also recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party concedes that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.3 The Committee considers that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, and that those issues should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility of the communication, it declares it admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being 8