CAT/C/49/D/406/2009 composed of five members. To the contrary, in the complainant‟s own words, her role is to disseminate information about demonstrations and meetings of KINIJIT, but she is not involved, for example, in their organization. In addition, she has participated in several demonstrations, made an oral statement at a meeting of KINIJIT on 29 April 2006 and appears in the photographs showing a group of people upon the filing of a petition to the United Nations at Geneva on 22 May 2008. 4.9 In this regard, the State party submits that the Ethiopian authorities are focusing all their attention on individuals whose activities go beyond “the usual behaviour”, or who exercise a particular function or activity that could pose a threat to the Ethiopian regime. However, the complainant presented no political profile when she arrived in Switzerland and the State party deems it reasonable to exclude that she has subsequently developed such a profile. The State party maintains that the documents produced by the complainant do not show activity in Switzerland able to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. The fact that the complainant is identified in photographs and video recordings is not sufficient to demonstrate a risk of persecution if returned. It is difficult, for obvious practical reasons, to identify the participants of a large demonstration if they are not previously known to the Ethiopian authorities. 4.10 The State party submits that there is no evidence that the Ethiopian authorities have opened criminal proceedings against the complainant or that they have adopted other measures against her. 4.11 As to the complainant‟s claim that she is a victim of the conflicting jurisprudence by the Federal Administrative Court, the State party submits that there are considerable differences between the complainant‟s case and the other case mentioned in her communication to the Committee.9 The latter case involved an individual who had held important positions within the Ethiopian army, had knowledge of sensitive data and was in close contact with the opposition before her flight. Hence she fell within the category of persons exposed to a high risk of monitoring by the Ethiopian authorities abroad. In the complainant‟s case, however, the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court did not deem convincing the complainant‟s claim that she has a function within the Ethiopian diaspora in Switzerland able to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities.10 In other words, the complainant has not established that if returned to Ethiopia she would run a risk of ill-treatment because of her political activities in Switzerland. 4.12 The State party submits that, in the light of the above, there is no indication that there are substantial grounds for fearing that the complainant‟s return to Ethiopia would expose her to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, and invites the Committee to find that the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the international obligations of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 21 April 2011, the complainant commented on the State party‟s observations. She notes that recent reports11 suggest that the Ethiopian authorities are closely monitoring 9 10 11 See footnote 3 above. A copy of the judgement was provided by the State party and is available on file. Reference is also made, inter alia, to communications No. 375/2009, T.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 May 2011; No. 393/2009, E.T. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 23 May 2012; and No. 414/2010, N.T.W. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 16 May 2012. Reference is made to the United States Department of State, 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ethiopia, 8 April 2011; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2011 (New York, 2011), 7