CAT/C/49/D/432/2010 demonstrators, this was not considered sufficient by the Federal Office for Migration to make her appear to be a potentially destabilizing regime critic. The Federal Office pointed out that she had not been the only protester to chant slogans and that her name was not indicated on the photographs published on the Internet. Thus, it could not be concluded that the complainant was more exposed than others. 2.6 As to the political articles published by the complainant on the Internet, the Federal Office for Migration held that in the light of the fact that hundreds of anti-Government articles were published on the Internet, it could not be concluded that she had attracted any particular attention of the Ethiopian authorities. Even if they were informed about the political activities of the nationals in exile, they would be in no position to monitor and identify every single person, considering the high number of Ethiopian nationals living abroad. Moreover, the Ethiopian authorities should be aware of the fact that many Ethiopian emigrants try, for mainly economic reasons, to gain a residence permit in Europe, and particularly in Switzerland, before or after the conclusion of their asylum procedures, therefore dedicating themselves to anti-Government activities, such as participation in demonstrations, publication of photographs and texts, etc. 2.7 The Federal Office for Migration concluded, therefore, that the Ethiopian authorities did not have an interest in singling out a particular person, unless his or her activities were perceived as a tangible threat to the political system. In the complainant’s case, there were no indications to suggest that she was active or particularly exposed. The complainant definitely did not belong to the targeted group of hard-core dissident activists in exile who were of interest to the Ethiopian authorities. 2.8 The complainant’s appeal against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration was rejected by the Federal Administrative Court on 6 August 2010. Following the latter judgement, the complainant was requested to leave Switzerland by 9 September 2010. The complainant submits that if she fails to leave voluntarily, she will be forcibly returned to Ethiopia. 2.9 In addition to the reasons given by the Federal Office for Migration for rejecting the complainant’s second asylum request, the Federal Administrative Court found that the articles published on the Internet could not lead to an unambiguous identification of the complainant by the Ethiopian authorities. On the one hand, the five different signatures would not prove her original authorship. On the other hand, it could not be ruled out that a different person with the same name as the complainant was in fact the author of these articles. 2.10 Overall, the Federal Administrative Court concluded that the complainant did not leave an impression of being a high-profile and potentially destabilizing regime critic who would justify the Ethiopian secret service’s interest in her. Thus, she would neither be at risk of political persecution nor of being subjected to torture or other inhumane and degrading treatment if she were returned to Ethiopia. 2.11 The complainant submits that, contrary to the assessment made by the Federal Administrative Court, she has a well-founded fear of having been perceived and registered as a dissident activist by the Ethiopian authorities and she would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention if she were deported to Ethiopia, for the following reasons: 4