CAT/C/71/D/904/2018 Complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that her deportation to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of her rights under article 3 of the Convention. She claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if deported, she would be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of the authorities of Ethiopia. 3.2 In particular, the complainant alleges that she has been subjected to ill-treatment in the past by representatives of the Ethiopian Liyu Police. She underlines that the medical examination performed in accordance with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) attests to her account of having been subjected to torture. She asserts that her statements also coincide with the general country information on Ethiopia as established in a country report produced by the Ministry of Immigration and Integration of Denmark, according to which there is a high risk of persecution for persons affiliated with the Ogaden National Liberation Front, especially for detainees in Somali Region.2 3.3 She further asserts that the domestic authorities relied heavily on minor discrepancies detected in her account. In this regard, she submits that she explained to the authorities that those inconsistencies partly stemmed from errors of interpretation, from the fact that the interpreter was a man, which prevented her from effectively challenging these errors, and from the fact that she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, causing her severe memory loss. She submits that her inability to answer clearly whether the Ethiopian Liyu Police should be considered a police or military force is explained by the fact that, even according to the relevant country information, there is no simple answer to that question. The Liyu Police is a government-founded paramilitary special police force that has been implicated in numerous acts of human rights abuse against civilians in Somali Region, whose legal status remains unclear. Regarding her allegedly scarce knowledge about the Ogaden National Liberation Front, she notes that, according to the travaux préparatoires of the State party’s Aliens Act, knowledge of family members’ political activities is not indication of a person’s own political opinion. Considering also the cultural differences, the complainant’s lack of insight into the activities of the Ogaden National Liberation Front should not have served as a basis for a negative finding regarding her credibility. 3.4 With regard to the present human rights situation in Ethiopia, the complainant submits that, even though there have been some recent developments between the various stakeholders, it is not possible to foresee at the present time whether these developments will indeed entail positive changes on the ground. She submits that her country of origin remains a corrupt place and that there is no guarantee that she would not be subjected to ill-treatment if deported, given her past persecution and given the fact that she has escaped from the country to avoid imprisonment. She thus concludes that, if she were to be deported to Ethiopia, she would face a foreseeable, personal and real risk of torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 20 June 2019, the State party submitted its observation on admissibility and the merits of the communication. The State party refers to its relevant domestic legislation and points out that the authorities considered the complainant’s case in accordance with the Aliens Act of 2005 and article 3 of the Convention. It recalls the facts on which the communication is based, as well as the complainant’s claims. 4.2 The State party does not contest that the complainant has exhausted domestic remedies. However, it submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, because the complainant’s claim that her expulsion to Ethiopia would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention fails to achieve the minimum level of substantiation. However, in 2 Denmark, Danish Immigration Service (Ministry of Immigration and Integration), Ethiopia: Political Situation and Treatment of Opposition (Copenhagen, 2018). 3