CAT/C/48/D/414/2010 expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, and invites the Committee against Torture to find that the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the international commitments of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 30 August 2010, the complainant submitted that the Swiss immigration authorities have recognized themselves that he had a thorough political interest and that it was likely that he had engaged in critical political discussions in 2005. He reiterates that he was actively campaigning for KINIJIT during the electoral campaign in 2005 and that he was a well-informed advocate for the opposition movement. He maintains that he combines several qualities that would make him a potentially destabilizing factor to the Ethiopian regime and that accordingly it is very likely that the latter would take his dissident activism in exile seriously. He further submits that not only has he steadily continued his political activism in KINIJIT by participating in demonstrations and writing in Internet forums, but he also serves as the cantonal representative for KINIJIT for the canton of Zurich. 5.2 The complainant maintains that the Ethiopian authorities have at their disposal “very modern means of monitoring the activities of the opposition in exile”. In case of return, Ethiopian members of the opposition movement are screened and risk imprisonment, because of their activities in exile. The complainant refers to the case of Judge Birtukan Mideksa, a former chairperson of the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party who, on an unspecified date, was arrested upon return to Ethiopia after travelling in Europe and making comments critical of the public regime. The author submits that he has published several critical comments on dissident Ethiopian websites and, considering the “much more advanced technical monitoring means” at the disposition of the Ethiopian authorities, it is very likely that he has been identified as an active member of the opposition in exile, especially given his position as cantonal representative of KINIJIT in Zurich. 5.3 The complainant further submits that the regime in his home country is extremely hostile to criticism and opposition in general. With the recent anti-terrorist legislation, repression of political speech and peaceful protest has been legalized. Detention of persons suspected of maintaining links with the opposition parties is common. The complainant maintains that upon his return to Ethiopia, he will be apprehended and interrogated, that prison conditions are among the worst in the world and that torture is employed frequently. The complainant further makes reference to a case in which the Swiss immigration authorities had granted refugee status to an Ethiopian national who had been working for the Ethiopian Human Rights Council and was than active as a cantonal representative of the CUPD. He claims that his case is similar and therefore maintains that the State party’s allegations that it is unlikely that the complainant had been registered by the Ethiopian authorities provide no guarantee “against the likely mistreatment the complainant will suffer”. He reiterates that if Switzerland forcibly returns him to Ethiopia, it will violate its obligation under article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a 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, paragraph 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. 7