Decision; Subjects: SWITZERLAND, TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL TREATMENT; [CAT: UNO-Antifolterkonvention, Übereinkommen gegen Folter; Convention contre la torture; Convenzione contro la tortura]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.15-11100 (E)
Committee against Torture
Communication No. 491/2012
Decision adopted by the Committee at its fifty-fourth session
(20 April–15 May 2015)
Submitted by:
E. E. E. (represented by counsel, Stephanie
Motz, Advokatur Kanonengasse)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State party:
Switzerland
Date of complaint:
16 February 2012 (initial submission)
Date of present decision:
8 May 2015
Subject matter:
Deportation of the complainant to Ethiopia
Procedural issues:
Lack of substantiation of claims; exhaustion of
domestic remedies
Substantive issue:
Risk of torture upon return to the country
of origin
Article of the Convention:
Article 3
United Nations
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
2 July 2015
Original: English
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
2
Annex
Decision of the Committee against Torture under article 22 of
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (fifty-fourth session)
concerning
Communication No. 491/2012*
Submitted by:
E. E. E. (represented by counsel, Stephanie
Motz, Advokatur Kanonengasse)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State party:
Switzerland
Date of complaint:
16 February 2012 (initial submission)
The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 8 May 2015,
Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 491/2012, submitted to it by
E. E. E. under article 22 of the Convention,
Having taken into account all information made available to it by the complainant,
her counsel and the State party,
Adopts the following:
Decision under article 22 (7) of the Convention
1.1
The complainant is E. E. E., an Ethiopian national born on 27 December 1978. She
claims that her deportation to Ethiopia would constitute a violation by Switzerland of
article 3 of the Convention. The complainant is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 23 February 2012, the Committee requested the State party to refrain from
expelling the complainant to Ethiopia while her complaint was being considered by the
Committee. On 27 February 2012, the State party informed the Committee that the Federal
Migration Office had requested the competent authorities to stay the execution of the
expulsion order in relation to the complainant until further notice.
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant is of Oromo ethnicity. She attended university in Addis Ababa,
where she met students who were political activists and sympathizers of the Oromo
Liberation Front (OLF). She claims that she started participating in meetings and activities
organized by that group of students and that, in or around 2000, she became a member of
* The following members of the Committee participated in the consideration of the present
communication: Essadia Belmir, Alessio Bruni, Satyabhoosun Gupt Domah, Abdoulaye Gaye, Jens
Modvig, Sapana Pradhan-Malla, George Tugushi and Kening Zhang.
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
3
Mecha Tulema, a welfare association for the Oromo community whose members were
sympathizers of OLF.
2.2
In May 2004, all the participants in a meeting organized by Mecha Tulema were
arrested and detained. The complainant did not participate in the meeting. She claims that
when she went to visit one of her friends, A.G., who was detained in a police station, she
was beaten and kicked by police officers and kept in a detention cell for 25 hours. The next
morning, an Oromo-speaking police officer asked her why she was there. When she
explained to him what had happened and that she had just brought food for a friend, she
was released. She and other Oromo students later attended the court hearings concerning
the student detainees. According to the complainant, the detained students were charged
with inciting an armed uprising and being members of OLF.
2.3
The complainant states that later, at a funeral, she met the same officer who had
detained. He asked her to show him her identity document and told her that he knew that
she was a member of OLF. She states that she ran away in fear. Later, she learned that her
friend A.G. had been killed and she decided that she had to leave Ethiopia.
2.4
In December 2006, she travelled to Kuwait, where she lived and worked as a
domestic worker until July 2007. On 28 July 2007, her employers went to Switzerland on
vacation and took her with them. Four days after her arrival in Switzerland, she ran away
from her employers, who treated her badly. She was arrested by the Swiss police and taken
to the Reception Centre in Vallorbe, where she requested asylum on 2 August 2007. She
claims that her parents had informed her that the Ethiopian authorities were always going to
her home asking for her.
2.5
On 17 September 2007, the Federal Migration Office refused her application for
asylum. The complainant appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. On 12 October
2010, the Court dismissed her appeal, stating that she had given contradicting and vague
information, in particular regarding her membership of OLF and Mecha Tulema, since she
had first stated that she was an active member and later, that she was a sympathizer. The
Court further stated that the photographs she submitted and the fact that she was Oromo did
not prove that she was active within the opposition or would be at risk of torture or
persecution if returned to her country of origin.
2.6
On 17 November 2010, the complainant filed a second asylum request before the
Federal Migration Office on the basis of her political activities with OLF in the State party.
She claimed that, in addition to her activities before leaving Ethiopia, since her arrival in
Switzerland she had been an active member of the Swiss branch of OLF and had
participated in most of its meetings and events. In support of her claims, she provided two
letters issued by the European Regional Office of OLF, dated 25 September 2007 and 21
April 2009, and a letter issued by OLF-Switzerland, dated 1 December 2010, in which it
was stated that she was an active member of the organization.1 She claimed that
photographs showing her participating in events of OLF-Switzerland were published on the
website of Oromia Times.
2.7
The complainant was invited to an asylum interview on 22 December 2010. Despite
her request to have the interview conducted in Affaan-Oromo, it was in Amharic because
the Federal Migration Office did not have Oromo interpreters.2 She asserted that she
1 The complainant also submitted to the Committee an affidavit dated 24 January 2012, issued by the
European Regional Office of OLF.
2 The Committee notes that the complainant submitted a request, dated 17 December 2010, for an
Affaan-Oromo interpreter, in which she also mentioned that she was fluent in Amharic. On 20
December 2010, the BFM informed the complainant that it did not have an Affaan-Oromo interpreter.
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
4
expressed herself better in Oromo and felt inhibited speaking about her difficulties in
Ethiopia, which were related to her Oromo ethnicity, in the presence of an Amharic-
speaking Ethiopian. On 30 December 2010, the Office dismissed her second application
and ordered her expulsion from Switzerland. She appealed this decision before the Federal
Administrative Court and submitted as further evidence a copy of Oromia Times
documenting the celebration of the martyrs’ festival on 1 January 2011.
2.8
On 10 January 2012, the Federal Administrative Court upheld the decision of the
Federal Migration Office and dismissed the complainant’s appeal. The Court held that her
account regarding the reason why she left Ethiopia to go to Kuwait in 2006 were not
credible, as stated by the Office. In particular, the Court pointed out that she had
contradicted herself and given vague information. Notably, she had first stated that she was
a member of OLF and then of Mecha Tulema. She had also first argued that she was an
active member of OLF, and then she said that she was a sympathizer. As to the photographs
of her participating in OLF-Switzerland activities, the Court held that they did not prove
that she was active within the organization and that she would be at risk of torture or
persecution if returned to Ethiopia. Accordingly, the Court found that, although she was of
Oromo ethnicity and had a “certain proximity” with OLF, she failed to prove that she had a
well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Ethiopia. It ordered her to leave the State
party before 14 February 2012.
2.9
The complainant submits that she has exhausted all domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant asserts that Switzerland would violate her rights under article 3 of
the Convention by forcibly deporting her to Ethiopia, where she would “be at a real risk of
being subjected to State persecution and inhumane treatment” owing to her active
participation in Ethiopian dissident activities in Switzerland.
3.2
She claims that the Swiss authorities did not adequately assess the risk that she
would be subject to if returned to Ethiopia. They failed to assess her personal situation in
Ethiopia prior to her departure as well as her activities as a member of OLF-Switzerland in
the State party, which have been documented in pictures on Internet websites. Furthermore,
the Swiss authorities should have taken into account the current record of human rights
violations in Ethiopia against members of OLF, including students who participate in or
support its activities.
3.3
The complainant points out that there is no contradiction in being a member of
Mecha Tulema and a sympathizer of OLF because they are closely related. Indeed, it is for
that reason that Mecha Tulema was prohibited by the Government of Ethiopia.3 Upon her
arrival in Switzerland, the complainant became an active member of OLF-Switzerland and
it is likely that the Ethiopian authorities know about her activism in the State party. She
states that she had participated in a demonstration against the Government of Ethiopia
outside the United Nations Office at Geneva on 14 November 2011.4
3 The complainant refers to extracts of reports, including Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada, Ethiopia: An organization called Mecha Tulema, including its objectives, structure and
status; the treatment of its leaders and members by the current government (1990–Sept. 2004), 23
September 2004; Human Rights Watch “Suppressing dissent human rights abuses and political
repression in Ethiopia’s Oromia region”, vol. 17, No. 7 (A), May 2005; and Amnesty International,
“Ethiopie. Craintes de torture/arrestations arbitraires/prisonniers d’opinion”, 27 September 2004.
4 The complainant refers to the documents submitted to the State party’s authorities with her second
asylum request (see paras. 2.6 and 2.7 above); she also submits to the Committee photographs of her
taking part in a demonstration in front of the United Nations Office at Geneva.
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
5
3.4
The Government of Ethiopia outlawed OLF in 1992 and classified it as a terrorist
organization. Its members and other Oromo individuals involved in political opposition are
frequently accused of terrorism and detained. Reports indicate that, in 2004, OLF and
Mecha Tulema members were detained, held incommunicado and tortured. An Amnesty
International report confirmed that the complainant’s friend, A.G., was among those
detained.5 Later, the Government intensified its efforts to limit the influence of armed
opposition groups. As part of those efforts, new anti-terrorist legislation was enacted with
powerful means to repress critical voices and the right to freedom of expression. In 2011,
hundreds of members of OLF and other Oromo opposition parties (for example, the Oromo
Federal Democratic Movement and the Oromo People’s Congress) were arbitrarily arrested
and detained.6 The Government is also closely monitoring “dissident web pages”, as they
are perceived as potentially destabilizing for the regime. Against this background, the
complainant asserts that persons suspected of links with OLF are at grave risk of being
persecuted, detained and subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment.
3.5
The complainant refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on Ethiopia7
and argues that owing to her continued activism and presence within OLF and the Oromo
community in Switzerland, she has become a visible figure in the Oromo exile movement.
It is thus highly likely that the Ethiopian authorities have noticed her activism against the
Government and her relationship with those organizations.
State party’s observations on the merits8
4.1
On 22 August 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the
complaint. The State party points out that, in her first asylum request, the complainant
stated that she was a “sympathizer” of OLF and Mecha Tulema, that she was arrested and
detained in Ethiopia the night of 7 to 8 May 2004, and that she had left her country of
origin to escape poverty. The migration authorities and the Federal Administrative Court
thoroughly examined her allegations before rejecting her asylum request.
4.2
The complainant’s second request for asylum was grounded solely on her activities
in Switzerland, in particular activities carried out after the Federal Administrative Court had
rejected her first asylum request on 12 October 2010. The Court examined her new claims
and the evidence submitted; however, it concluded that they were not substantiated. The
State party further notes that the complainant does not present any new elements to the
Committee that would call into question the decisions of the Swiss asylum authorities,
which were made following a detailed examination of the case, but rather disputes the
authorities’ assessment of the facts and evidence. Accordingly, the Court maintains that her
deportation to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the Convention by Switzerland.
4.3
Pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, State parties are prohibited from expelling,
returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds for
believing that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such
grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations,
5 The complainant refers to Amnesty International, “Ethiopie. Craintes de torture/arrestations
arbitraires/prisonniers d’opinion”, 27 September 2004.
6 The complainant refers to reports quoted in Country of Origin Research and Information, Ethiopia:
Treatment of members of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), including members of their family, 6
July 2009; Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2012: Ethiopia”; Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, press release, “Ethiopia: UN experts disturbed at persistent misuses
of terrorism law to curb freedom of expression”, 2 February 2012, in which United Nations Special
Rapporteurs expressed their dismay at the abuse of anti-terrorist laws against journalists in Ethiopia.
7 See CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, para. 10.
8 The State party did not contest the admissibility of the complaint.
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
6
including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.9 Such a pattern in itself is not a sufficient
basis for concluding that an individual might be subjected to torture upon his or her return
to his or her country of origin, and additional grounds must exist for the risk of torture to
qualify as “foreseeable, real and personal” under article 3 of the Convention.
4.4
Regarding the general human rights situation in Ethiopia, the State party submits
that the elections in Ethiopia in May and August 2005 strengthened the representation of
opposition parties in the Parliament. It recognizes that, although the Ethiopian Constitution
explicitly recognizes human rights, there are many instances of arbitrary arrest and
detention, particularly of members of opposition parties, and that the judiciary lacks
independence. However, being a member or supporter of an opposition political party does
not, in principle, lead to a risk of persecution. It is different for persons who hold a
prominent position in an opposition political party.10 In the light of the above information,
the competent Swiss asylum authorities have adopted differentiated practices to determine
the risk of persecution. Individuals who are suspected by the Ethiopian authorities of being
members of OLF or the Ogaden National Liberation Front are considered at risk of
persecution. With regard to monitoring political activities in exile, the State party submits
that, according to the information available to it, the Ethiopian diplomatic or consular
missions lack the personnel and structural resources to systematically monitor the political
activities of members of opposition parties in Switzerland. However, active and/or
important members of the opposition, as well as activists of organizations campaigning for
the use of violence, run the risk of being identified and registered and, therefore, of being
persecuted if returned to Ethiopia.11
4.5
The State party indicates that, in her first asylum request, the complainant did not
refer to the ill-treatment to which she was allegedly subjected while in detention in May
2004 nor to the threats she allegedly received from a police officer later (see paras. 2.2 and
2.3 above). As to her alleged political activities, the State party notes that, during the first
asylum proceedings, the complainant declared that she was a sympathizer of OLF, without
making any reference to Mecha Tulema. Thirteen days later, she stated that she had been an
active member of Mecha Tulema since 2001 or 2002; then she stated that she was not a
member of Mecha Tulema, but that she participated in all of its activities. Her claims of
political activities in Ethiopia were carefully and thoroughly examined by the Federal
Administrative Court, which considered them vague and not credible. The authorities noted
that, inter alia, the complainant did not have any problems or any relevant incidents with
the authorities after May 2004. In 2006, she legally left the country by aeroplane, without
any problem, to work in Kuwait, and that was two and a half years after her alleged
detention by the police. Accordingly, the asylum authorities concluded that she would not
be at risk of persecution if returned to her country of origin.
4.6
The State party states that the Federal Migration Office and the Federal
Administrative Court also examined her allegation that she would be at risk of being
subjected to torture owing to her alleged political activities in Switzerland. It indicates that
9 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of
article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, paras. 6 and 8; and communications
No. 94/1997, K. N. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 19 May 1998, paras. 10.2 and 10.5; and
No. 100/1997, J. U. A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5.
10 The State party refers to the United Kingdom, Home Office, UK Border and Immigration Agency,
Operational Guidance Note, Ethiopia, March 2009, paras. 3.6 and following.
11 The State party refers to Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ethiopia: Evidence of
surveillance by government officials of demonstrations against Ethiopia in Europe and North
America (2006–February 2007), 13 March 2007.
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
7
the letters issued by OLF-European Regional Office, which were submitted by the
complainant during the domestic proceedings, do not contain any concrete reference to her
political activities in Switzerland. On the other hand, the letter issued by OLF-Switzerland
states that she is an active member of the organization and participates mainly through
monthly contributions, fund-raising activities, monthly meetings and promotion of Oromo
cultural activities. Hence, the authorities consider that she has not played any major or
important role in the organization, as was confirmed by her statements during the
interviews under the second asylum proceedings.
4.7
The State party submits that the Ethiopian authorities are focusing on individuals
whose activities go beyond “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 subsequently developed such a profile. The State party
maintains that the documents produced by the complainant do not show any activity in
Switzerland that would attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. The fact that the
complainant is identified in photographs and video recordings is not sufficient to
demonstrate that she would be at risk of persecution if returned to Ethiopia. It would be
difficult, for obvious practical reasons, to identify the participants in a large demonstration
if they are not previously known to the Ethiopian authorities.
4.8
The State party maintains that numerous political demonstrations are attended by
the complainant’s compatriots in Switzerland and in other countries; photographs or video
recordings showing, sometimes, hundreds of people are made publicly available by the
relevant media; and it is unlikely that the Ethiopian authorities can identify each person, or
that they even have knowledge of the affiliation of the complainant with the above
organization.
4.9
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.
4.10
The State party submits that, in the light of the above, there is no indication that
substantial grounds exist for believing that the complainant’s return to Ethiopia would
expose her to a “foreseeable, real and personal risk” of torture. It 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.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 30 October 2012, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s
observations. She asserts that the human rights situation in Ethiopia has not improved and
that the authorities have tried to brutally suppress dissidents. Journalists and opposition
leaders have been imprisoned under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation. During 2011 and
2012, over 100 journalists and political opposition members were arrested and prosecuted
on charges of terrorism and other offences, including treason. In general, human rights
violations, including torture, arbitrary detention and forced evictions, are still widespread,
but are seriously underreported in Ethiopia. Perpetrators of human rights violations are not
brought to justice and punished.12
12 The complainant refers to United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights and
Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report – Quarterly Updates: Ethiopia, 30
September 2012; and Amnesty International, Ethiopia must improve its human rights record to be
credible candidate for election to the Human Rights Council, 28 August 2012.
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
8
5.2
The complainant reiterates her allegations that there is no contradiction in being a
member of Mecha Tulema and a sympathizer of OLF because they are closely related.
Furthermore, the difference in her statements during the asylum proceedings was due to
misunderstandings between her and the interpreter.
5.3
The complainant argues that in her interview of 30 August 2007 she explained that
she had decided to leave her country of origin for multiple reasons, in particular the
encounter with the police officer who had put her in detention and tortured her in 2004 and
who had intimidated her by telling her that he knew that she was a member of OLF. She ran
away because she was afraid that he would arrest her again. In addition, she states that she
was also intimidated by the fact that, in 2006, her brother had been beaten by a police
officer because he was Oromo.
5.4
During that interview, she mentioned that she had a scar on the left side of her torso
as a consequence of the torture that she had suffered while in detention in Ethiopia. She
stated that the doctor at the asylum reception centre in Switzerland had noticed it and asked
her about it. If the authorities doubt her account, they had the opportunity to carry out a
medical examination. In that regard, she claims that the State party is better placed both
financially and logistically than an asylum seeker who has just arrived in a new country to
ascertain all relevant facts.
5.5
She holds that, in the light of all that she experienced in Ethiopia prior to her
departure, including the fact that she is of Oromo ethnicity, and her current opposition
political activities in exile, it should be concluded that she has a sufficiently high profile as
to be at risk of persecution by the Ethiopian authorities if returned.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any 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 (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.
6.2
The Committee also recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (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 present case, the State party concedes that the complainant has
exhausted all available domestic remedies.
6.3
The Committee considers that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3
of the Convention, and that those issues should be examined on the merits. As the
Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility of the communication, it declares it
admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits.
Consideration of the merits
7.1
In accordance with article 22 (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
In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the
complainant to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of 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
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
9
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 that risk, the Committee must take into account all
relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (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 be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern
of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute
sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being
subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show
that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a
consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might
not be subject to torture in his or her specific circumstances.13
7.3
The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of
article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the risk of
torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the
risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable”,14 the Committee recalls that
the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case
that he or she faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk.15 The Committee further recalls
that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings
of fact that are made by the 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 (4) of the
Convention, to carry out a free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of
circumstances in every case.16
7.4
In the present case, the complainant claims that she was a sympathizer of OLF; that
she participated in Mecha Tulema activities in Ethiopia; that, in May 2004, she was
detained in a police station for 25 hours, beaten and kicked by police officers; and that later
she met the police officer who had arrested her, who told her that he knew that she was a
member of OLF. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations concerning the
complainant’s lack of credibility, in particular that she provided contradicting statements
regarding her relationship and affiliation with OLF and Mecha Tulema; that she lived in
Ethiopia for more than two years after her alleged detention in May 2004 without any
problems with the authorities; that she left her country legally with a passport; and that,
during the interview under the first asylum proceedings, she stated that she had left her
country to escape from poverty.
7.5
The Committee notes that the complainant has not submitted any objective evidence
whatsoever to substantiate her account of her alleged experiences in Ethiopia prior to her
departure. In her comments to the State party’s observations, she argues that the State party
failed to carry out an independent medical assessment of her allegations of torture although,
during the interview on 30 August 2007, she had mentioned to the authorities that she had a
13 See communications No. 426/2010, R. D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013,
para. 9.2; No. 344/2008, A. M. A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010, para. 7.2;
and No. 333/2007, decision adopted on 15 November 2010, para. 7.3.
14 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the
Convention in the context of article 22, para. 6.
15 Ibid.; see also, communication No. 203/2002, A. R. v. the Netherlands, decision adopted on 21
November 2003, para. 7.3.
16 See, inter alia, communication No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014,
para. 8.3.
CAT/C/54/D/491/2012
10
scar as a consequence of the ill-treatment suffered while in detention in Ethiopia. The
Committee has reviewed all the material before it and notes that during the first interview
relating to her first asylum request, the complainant mentioned that, while in detention in
Ethiopia, a police officer had beaten her on her breast; then, when she was lying on the
floor, he pressed on her back with his boots, as a result of which, she has a lesion on her
back; the doctor at the asylum reception centre had asked her about it; she did not tell him
the origin of the lesion; and further medical examinations were to be carried out at the
centre to find out the cause of the lesion. The complainant has not indicated to the
Committee that the State party refused to carry out medical examinations, nor has she given
any reasons that may prevent her from requesting such examinations or why she did not
include that allegation in her appeals or in her second asylum request.17 The case file does
not contain any information as to whether further medical examinations were appropriate in
the complainant’s case. Nonetheless, the Committee recalls that ill-treatment suffered in the
past is only one element to be taken into account; the relevant issue before the Committee is
whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Ethiopia.18 The
Committee considers that, even if it were assumed that the complainant was mistreated by
the police in the past, it does not automatically follow that, almost 10 years after the alleged
events occurred, she would still be at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if returned to
Ethiopia.19
7.6
The complainant further claims that she has been an active member of OLF-
Switzerland, which has been documented in pictures on Internet sites. The Committee
further notes the complainant’s claim that the Ethiopian authorities use sophisticated
technological means to monitor Ethiopian dissidents abroad. However, the Committee
observes that she has not elaborated on that claim or presented any evidence to support it.
The Committee also notes that the State party has disputed that claim.
7.7
In the Committee’s view, the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence
about the conduct of any political activity of such significance as to attract the interest of the
Ethiopian authorities, nor has she submitted any other evidence to demonstrate that the
authorities in her home country are looking for her or that she would face a personal risk of
being tortured if returned to Ethiopia. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the
information submitted by the complainant, including the unclear nature of her political
activities in Ethiopia prior to her departure from that country and the low-level nature of her
political activities Switzerland, is insufficient to show that she would be personally exposed
to a risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia. The Committee is concerned at
the many reports of human rights violations, including the use of torture, in Ethiopia,20
against, inter alia, persons of Oromo ethnicity, but recalls that, for the purposes of article 3
of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk
of being tortured in the country to which he or she is being returned. In the light of the
foregoing, the Committee deems that such a risk has not been established.
8.
In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the
Convention, concludes that the State party’s decision to return the complainant to Ethiopia
would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
17 See communication No. 458/2011, X. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 9.4.
18 See, for example, communications No. 61/1996, X. Y. and Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May
1998, para. 11.2; and No. 435/2010, G. B. M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2012,
para. 7.7.
19 See, for example, communication No. 431/2010, Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 May 2013,
para. 7.7.
20 The Committee notes that Ethiopia is also a State party to the Convention and recalls its 2011
concluding observations (see CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, paras. 10–14).