CAT/C/62/D/683/2015 conditions in the Sudan are very bad and that prisoners are frequently mistreated. 10 He also points to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which anyone who opposes or is suspected of opposing the current Sudanese regime is at risk of being detained, ill-treated and tortured in the Sudan, even if they are not leaders of or highprofile figures within political movements.11 This risk may increase if the person has spent a significant period of time abroad.12 As a supporter of the Justice and Equality Movement and an active member of its Swiss branch who remained abroad for over 10 years, the complainant claims to have a well-founded fear of being apprehended upon his return to the Sudan and subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment. 3.6 The complainant submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies, given that the Federal Administrative Court, as a specialized court, is the final national authority in asylum matters. Moreover, the present communication has not been and is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 27 November 2015, the State party submitted observations on the merits of the communication. It draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that, on 4 March 2010, the complainant lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights relating to the Federal Administrative Court judgment of 16 December 2009. The European Court did not grant the application suspensive effect and declared it inadmissible as it was manifestly illfounded. 4.2 With regard to the decisions on the first and second asylum applications, the State party submits that the claims of a risk of persecution upon removal of the complainant to the Sudan have been carefully considered by both the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. It holds that the present complaint to the Committee does not contain any new claims or evidence. 4.3 The State party indicates that its authorities duly considered whether the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if he were to be removed to his country of origin and concluded that his removal to the Sudan would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.4 The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence to the effect that occurrence of flagrant and systematic violations of human rights in the country of origin cannot, of itself, constitute a sufficient reason to conclude that the complainant would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to his country of origin. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his specific particular circumstances. 13 According to the State party, the Sudan does not currently face a situation of generalized violence. As stated in the Federal Administrative Court judgment of 26 March 2015, the situation of civil war and of generalized violence does, however, apply in Darfur. In addition, there are armed conflicts in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile State. The State party refers to the Federal Administrative Court jurisprudence, in which it accepts internal relocation within the Sudan, in particular as protection can be obtained from the authorities in the Khartoum region. 10 11 12 13 4 See Amnesty International, “Darfur crisis reaches Sudanese capital”. See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, A.A. v. Switzerland (application No. 58802/12), judgment of 7 January 2014, para. 40. In addition, the United Kingdom Border Agency found that “all non-Arab Darfuris, regardless of their political or other affiliations, are at risk of persecution in Darfur and cannot reasonably be expected to relocate elsewhere in the Sudan. Therefore, claimants who do not fall within the exclusion clauses are likely to qualify for asylum”. The European Court of Human Rights quoted a judgment handed down by the Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland that cited country reports establishing that “Sudanese nationals who were returning to their home country after having stayed abroad for some time were likely to be interrogated by the Sudanese authorities, who would specifically question them about their contacts with opposition movements abroad”. See A.A. v. Switzerland, para. 30. See, for example, N.S. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/44/D/356/2008), para. 7.2.