CAT/C/48/D/414/2010 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the instant case the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Ethiopia would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Ethiopia. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, that “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable” (para. 6), but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.10 The Committee recalls that under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 7.4 The Committee has noted the complainant’s submissions about his involvement in the electoral campaign in 2005 and in the activities of KINIJIT Switzerland. The Committee also notes the complainant’s submission that in 2005 he was warned by a friend, who had connections with the governing party, that the police were looking for him. The Committee, however, observes that the complainant has not submitted any evidence that the police or other authorities in Ethiopia had been looking for him since. The Committee also notes that the complainant has never been arrested or ill-treated by the authorities during or after the 2005 election, nor does he claim that any charges have been brought against him under the anti-terrorist or any other domestic law. The Committee further notes the complainant’s submission that the Ethiopian authorities use sophisticated technological means to monitor Ethiopian dissidents abroad, but observes that he has not elaborated on this claim or presented any evidence to support it. In the Committee’s view, the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence about the conduct of any political activity of such significance that would attract the interest of the Ethiopian authorities, nor has he submitted any other tangible evidence to demonstrate that the authorities in his home 10 See, inter alia, communications No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005, and No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 2005. 8