The complainant is Janbo Atilaw Melie, a national of Ethiopia born on 23 December 1982. He applied for asylum in Switzerland, but his application was rejected. He is facing deportation to Ethiopia and submits that his deportation would constitute a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. The State party has made the declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention, effective from 2 December 1986. The complainant is represented by counsel.
On 24 January 2021, pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, asked the State party not to deport the complainant to Ethiopia while the complaint was being considered.
On 27 January 2021, the State party informed the Committee that, in accordance with its established procedure, the State Secretariat for Migration had requested the competent authority to refrain from taking any steps to deport the complainant, so that he could be assured of remaining in Switzerland pending the consideration of his complaint by the Committee.
Facts as submitted by the complainant
In 2005, the complainant joined the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, also known as Kinijit, a former political opposition party in Ethiopia. In this context, he took part in political demonstrations. In June 2005, he was arrested at his workplace and held in Maekelawi, a prison in Addis Ababa. After a month and 20 days, he was released on bail. On his release, he was warned that if he reoffended, he would be returned to prison. For fear of being arrested again, the complainant left Addis Ababa a month later to live in Negele Borena. Although he then had no more problems with the authorities, he lived in fear of being arrested again. In 2012, while working in a store, the complainant took the opportunity offered by his employer to travel abroad to the Sudan, and fled the country.
On 4 July 2012, the complainant arrived in Switzerland, where he applied for asylum on 5 July 2012. He was heard on the same day, as well as on 20 July 2012 and 12 June 2014. On 17 June 2014, the Federal Office for Migration rejected his application for asylum. It noted that after his detention in 2005, the complainant had been able to live in Addis Ababa for a month, obtain a new identity card from the authorities and then move to Negele Borena, where he had lived until he left the country in 2012, without having been sought or summoned by the Ethiopian authorities – or having his family encounter difficulties on his account – showing that the persecution that he had claimed to have experienced had come to an end. Furthermore, if the threat of imprisonment he was facing had been serious, it would have been logical for the complainant to have remained in hiding, not to have sought employment opportunities, lived in the same place or made contact with several people.
On 18 September 2014, the Federal Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Federal Office for Migration. It found, among other things, that notwithstanding the claim of a politically motivated arrest, the complainant, following his release, had lived without further incident in Ethiopia, his country of origin, until his departure in 2012. In the Court’s view, the complainant had left his country because his employer had sold the store where the complainant worked and left Ethiopia, leaving the complainant without a job. The Court therefore found that possible persecution in 2004 and 2005 had not been the reason for his departure in 2012. The complainant himself stated that he was not politically active in his country of origin after his alleged arrest. In addition, the complainant’s claims regarding his political activities in exile – in particular, his participation in a rally – were generally considered insufficiently substantiated.
On 3 June 2015, the complainant filed another application for asylum, which, in essence, he justified on the strength of his political activities in exile and the fact that, as he stated, an Ethiopian court had issued a warrant for his arrest in 2014, in his absence, for having failed to report to the police.3 In a decision dated 7 September 2015, the State Secretariat for Migration4 rejected his application. It held, among other things, that the document from the Addis Ababa police station meant to prove that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of the complainant in his absence was a mere photocopy of no evidentiary value. Since there were also doubts about the content of this document, the State Secretariat found that, as a whole, it had no probative value. It also found that since it could not be assumed that the complainant was in the sights of the Ethiopian authorities at the time of his departure, it was unlikely that the Ethiopian authorities would identify him as a threat in view of his low-profile political activity in exile. The Secretariat’s decision became final for want of an appeal.
The complainant states that, in Switzerland, he is an important and active member of the Ethiopian Human Rights and Democracy Task Force in Switzerland. He has regularly participated in its meetings and in the protests it organizes against the Ethiopian Government, and one of his main responsibilities as a member of this Task Force is to demand the release of political prisoners. The complainant is also a very active member of an Ethiopian and Swiss sport and culture federation.
On 6 February 2020, the complainant was placed in administrative detention5 in preparation for deportation, unaccompanied, on a flight arranged for 28 February 2020; he refused to board the aircraft. The Ethiopian diaspora in Switzerland organized demonstrations outside the Embassy of Ethiopia in Geneva to protest his detention. The complainant is therefore known to the Ethiopian authorities. In addition, the Ethiopian authorities have for a long time refused to issue him a travel document.
- The detention of the complainant was ordered and subsequently extended following decisions made by a court in Solothurn on 7 February, 4 May, 4 August, 27 October and 30 November 2020. The detention order was issued because of the complainant’s conduct, in particular his repeated disappearances – on 6 February 2020, he was transferred from Germany to Switzerland within the framework of a Dublin procedure – his refusal to board the flight booked for him, his illegal stay of several years in Switzerland and his constant refusal to return to his country, conduct that suggests that he is still trying to avoid deportation. ↩
On 11 September 2020, the complainant filed a request for review on the grounds that the situation in Ethiopia had drastically worsened and that he had become a known political opponent. He mentioned the murder of Hachalu Hundessa, a well-known Ethiopian protest singer, and the demonstration in support of him that had taken place outside the Ethiopian Embassy. On 18 September 2020, the State Secretariat for Migration, after reviewing the situation in Ethiopia and the complainant’s political activity, decided not to take up the request for review and ordered his deportation. The complainant filed an appeal. He argued, among other things, that the State Secretariat had noted the wrong time limit for submitting an appeal.
On 26 October 2020, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s appeal. The Court referred to the political change that had been taking place in Ethiopia since the spring of 2018 – including a change of government – which had involved the integration of all political forces, those of the opposition in particular. It noted again that the complainant had lived in his country of origin without encountering any difficulties for several years before leaving it and that he had not been able to credibly demonstrate, during the two previous asylum procedures, that he was in the sights of the authorities of his country. The complainant had also been unable to show, in connection with his political involvement in exile, to what extent he would be considered a threat by the authorities in his country of origin.
Although the Court acknowledged that the complainant may have acquired a measure of notoriety in the wake of the demonstrations outside the Embassy, nothing showed that he was viewed as a political risk as a result. The late issuance of the complainant’s temporary travel document seems to have been caused by his avoidance of his obligations to leave the country and, in part, to cooperate with the authorities of the country of origin in the past and by his going into hiding in the meantime – a previously issued travel document was no longer valid after April 2020 – even if the pressure exerted on the Embassy seemed ultimately to have an effect. In this context, the Court stated that the complainant had since been issued a valid travel document. Furthermore, the tensions in his country of origin – in particular the murder of a well-known singer – were not evidence that the complainant faced a real and personal risk of persecution. The complainant had also failed to demonstrate in a credible and substantiated way that he did not have a network of social or economic contacts in Ethiopia. In that context, the Court had pointed out that the complainant had referred to his life in Addis Ababa and Negele Borena and therefore had no connection with Tigray, a region that is currently in conflict. The Court added that the jurisdiction of first instance had indeed indicated an incorrect time limit for submitting an appeal but emphasized that the complainant had not been put at any specific legal disadvantage as a result, since he had been able to prepare and submit an appeal.
On 15 November 2020, the Swiss authorities again tried to deport the complainant, under police escort, but he refused to board the plane.6 On 26 November 2020, he was released, and on 14 January 2021 he was placed in administrative detention again to be returned to Ethiopia by charter flight on 27 January 2021, accompanied by two intervention officers and two escorting officers.
- The complainant claims that the police officers who escorted him to the plane tried to use violence to make him obey: they choked him and injured his shoulder. He states that he is still suffering from the violence he was subjected to but that his medical records were unavailable when his communication was submitted to the Committee. ↩
Complaint
The complainant asserts that deporting him to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. He claims that, notwithstanding the views of the Federal Administrative Court, there are substantial grounds for believing that, if he were deported, he would be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the Ethiopian authorities.
The complainant refers to the political turmoil in Ethiopia to explain his fear of being treated arbitrarily or subjected to repressive measures by the national authorities. The situation in Addis Ababa has continued to worsen since 2015, resulting in widespread violence. In particular, Ethiopia has acquired one of the world’s most advanced surveillance systems to monitor not only its citizens at home but also the diaspora, and Ethiopians living in Switzerland have also been victims of cyberattacks.7 Politically active persons in Switzerland are therefore likely to be subjected to persecution upon their return, especially since the Ethiopian State monitors the activities of its nationals in Switzerland.
- Human Rights Watch, “They Know Everything We Do – Telecom and Internet Surveillance in Ethiopia”, 25 March 2014. ↩
The complainant reasserts that he has vigorously protested the human rights violations and illegal arrests for which the Ethiopian Government is responsible. He is thus well known in the Ethiopian diaspora in Switzerland and, after the demonstrations against his deportation in front of the Ethiopian Embassy, he is certainly considered a political dissident in Ethiopia and will be persecuted for this reason. He also reiterates that in Ethiopia, he was a member of the party Kinijit and was imprisoned for this reason. In addition, he mentions the negative effect that deportation would have on his mental health and adds that he could become a victim of the ongoing civil war.
The complainant argues that he had only five working days to appeal instead of the statutory 30 days as a result of an error recognized by the Federal Administrative Court in its decision of 26 October 2020. Although the Court was of the view that the complainant had not shown that he had been put at a significant disadvantage, since he had been able to submit his appeal within five days, the complainant claims that, in view of the shortened time limit for the submission of the appeal, he had had to draft it in haste. He therefore lacked the time to carefully study the decision he was challenging and to highlight to greater effect the risks he would face if he were deported.
Finally, the complainant claims that his rights under article 16 of the Convention may be violated in view of the risk of ill-treatment that he may face when he is deported,8 as he will be deported in what is known as a level-four deportation, a procedure much criticized by civil society, politicians, human rights defenders and the Committee. He argues that such treatment of mostly vulnerable and traumatized people – namely, having them shackled for hours, transported in wheelchairs with no freedom of movement and forced to wear helmets to control even the position of their heads – cannot be described as anything but excessive. Without a physician on board, he will not have access to any medical assistance he may need, which in itself constitutes inhumane treatment.
- See Sonko v. Spain (CAT/C/47/D/368/2008). ↩
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
On 18 October 2021, the State party transmitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), paragraph 38 of which states that the complainant must show that the danger of his or her being subjected to torture if he or she is expelled to his or her country is personal, present and real. Being a member of an ethnic group alone is thus not sufficient to establish such a danger.9 The existence of such a danger must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. It is also necessary to present facts showing that the danger is serious. The State party then refers to paragraph 49 of the same general comment to consider the complainant’s case in the light of the information that must be taken into account in order to conclude that there is such a danger.
- Z.Z. v. Canada (CAT/C/26/D/123/1998), para. 8.5. ↩
The State party argues that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for believing that a particular person will be subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin. The Committee must establish whether the complainant is personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned.10 Additional grounds must be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as “foreseeable, real and personal” for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention.11 The State party points out that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.
With regard to the general human rights situation in Ethiopia, the Federal Administrative Court referred to its landmark ruling on the situation in Ethiopia,12 which has changed significantly, especially since the new Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, a member of the Oromo ethnic group, took office in April 2018 intending to strengthen democracy by ensuring the participation of all political forces. Although the country continues to experience ethnic conflicts, it is possible to assume that the overall political situation is changing for the better. The unrest in June and July 2020 in connection with the death of the protest singer Hachalu Hundessa does not change this assessment. Nevertheless, the overall situation in Ethiopia is not characterized by war, including civil war, or widespread violence as a result of which the civilian population as a whole could be described as being, in concrete terms, in danger. Furthermore, the Court stressed that it could not be assumed that the complainant was a targeted victim of political persecution in his country of origin. The complainant is also unable to explain precisely who is threatening to persecute him and why.
- Federal Administrative Court, judgment D-6630/2018, 6 May 2019. ↩
As for the complainant’s political profile, the Federal Administrative Court noted that, regardless of the credibility of his allegation that he was detained for political reasons, he had lived unbothered in his country of origin for several years before his departure. The complainant was unable to persuasively substantiate the claim that he had been sought by the authorities during his absence from the country. Moreover, the political activities in exile that he has highlighted are not sufficient to suggest that he has developed a high political profile. While he may have gained a measure of notoriety as a result of the protests outside the Ethiopian Embassy, it cannot be said that he is, as a consequence, considered a threat to the Ethiopian Government.
The State party emphasizes that States parties to the Convention have an obligation to consider allegations of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and the existence of independent evidence in this regard when they assess the danger of being subjected to torture that a given complainant faces if he or she is returned to his or her country of origin. The State party notes that the complainant does not claim to have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in the statement included in his communication; he claims that he was tortured, without providing any further information, only when he contends that his rights under article 3 of the Convention were violated. Nor did he claim to have been subjected to such treatment before the national authorities.
With regard to the complainant’s political activities in his country of origin, the Swiss authorities noted that after his release in 2005, the complainant lived in his country of origin until 2012 without encountering any difficulties with the authorities, even though he was working and had contacts with the authorities, not living in hiding. The persecution that the complainant claimed that he had been subjected to before his release can thus be considered no longer pertinent, regardless of the credibility of his claims. The Swiss authorities also found that the alleged events of 2004 and 2005 did not prompt the complainant’s flight: if they had, he would have left his country earlier, not just in 2012, the year in which his employer, planning to leave, sold his store and the complainant found himself unemployed. The Federal Administrative Court found that it was for the latter reason that the complainant left his country of origin and that his fear of persecution was therefore unfounded. The complainant’s ability to live in his country of origin for several years without encountering difficulties with the authorities shows that he was not in the authorities’ sights. Moreover, the complainant himself stated that he had not been politically active in his country of origin since his arrest in 2005.
As for the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, the State party notes that he claimed that he was a member of the Ethiopian Human Rights and Democracy Task Force in Switzerland in his second application for asylum. In its decision of 7 September 2015, the State Secretariat for Migration found that the complainant could have made but did not make these claims during the asylum procedure that culminated in the Federal Administrative Court’s decision of 18 September 2014. The State Secretariat concluded that those claims were made in an attempt to have the deportation postponed, and it reiterated that the complainant was not, according to the findings of the Swiss national authorities, in the sights of the Ethiopian authorities at the time of his departure. It found that it could not be assumed that the complainant was being kept under surveillance in Switzerland by the Ethiopian authorities. The State Secretariat also noted that the Ethiopian authorities were interested in identifying an individual only if his or her activities were perceived as a threat to the political system. Moreover, being a member of this Task Force is not, on its own, a reason to believe that the complainant is at risk of being persecuted by the Ethiopian authorities. The complainant has neither demonstrated nor credibly argued that the Ethiopian authorities had any knowledge of these activities. The State Secretariat found that the complainant was certainly not part of the “hard core” of exiled opponents of the regime, in which the regime takes an interest. It therefore concluded that it was unlikely that the complainant would be identified by the authorities of his country of origin as a threat because of his political activity in exile, which was not particularly conspicuous.
The State party notes that the Swiss asylum authorities established that the complainant’s account of his reasons for leaving his country was not credible. As the complainant had lived in his country of origin from 2005 to 2012 without encountering difficulties with the Ethiopian authorities, they concluded that his claims that the events of 2004 and 2005 prompted his flight were not credible. The Swiss authorities also found that the persecution that the complainant had claimed to have been subjected to during the period preceding his alleged release was no longer pertinent, regardless of the credibility of his claims.
As for the complainant’s claim that his fear of being deported causes him severe psychological distress, the State party notes that the complainant did not submit any medical documentation attesting to his health either during the domestic proceedings or to the Committee. The psychological problems he mentions are related to the rejection of his applications for asylum in Switzerland and cannot be attributed to persecution in his country of origin.
Finally, the State party emphasizes that the complainant did not raise complaints about the circumstances of the deportation before the national authorities and that those complaints are therefore inadmissible. The State party is thus of the view that the complainant has not shown that there are substantial grounds for fearing that he would be in physical and personal danger of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Ethiopia.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
On 24 January 2022, the complainant argued that the State party did not mention the means of challenging a level-four deportation, that, in practice, the Swiss authorities do not inform asylum-seekers or their representatives of the method of deportation, the degree of coercion foreseen, the date of the flight or other details and that it was from a copy of the email sent by the State Secretariat for Migration to the cantonal authorities that he had obtained by chance, as he put it, that he had learned his deportation was to be a level-four deportation. In the absence of a formal message in this regard, the complainant is of the view that remedies are neither desired by the State party nor available.
The complainant contests the State party’s analysis of the situation in Ethiopia, which is not based on any report. Although the complainant is not from Tigray Region, which is in conflict, the conflict has spread throughout the country.13 The situation has in fact worsened since the complainant’s submission of his communication. On 4 November 2021, the Ethiopian Government granted itself emergency powers14 that arbitrarily restrict human rights and threaten the independence of the judiciary. It is clear, in view of the precarious situation in Ethiopia and the complainant’s political profile, described above, that he runs a high risk of being tortured if he is returned to Ethiopia.
The complainant states that he was tortured while he was imprisoned and that he has explained as much in his complaints to the Swiss authorities. Moreover, the Swiss authorities have not challenged these claims.
The complainant argues that the only way for him to avoid further imprisonment was to go into hiding in Negele Borena. If he is sent back to Ethiopia, he will no longer be able to hide, since he is now known to the Ethiopian authorities as a political dissident. He has been a very active member of the Ethiopian political community in exile; otherwise, the demonstrations in support of him outside the Ethiopian Embassy in Geneva would not have taken place. His political activities are thus clearly known to the Ethiopian authorities, who have been keeping an eye on him since these demonstrations. In addition, the Ethiopian authorities have already issued a warrant for his arrest, although the State party disputes its evidentiary value.
Finally, the complainant, referring to his health, submits a medical report dated 12 January 2022 that mentions, among other things, that he was imprisoned in Ethiopia for five years for his political activities and that, in an attempt to deport him by force, 10 Swiss police officers attacked him, handcuffed him and twisted and dislocated his left arm. The medical report states that he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and severe reactive depression. The complainant states that in Ethiopia he would not have access to adequate treatment, which constitutes a violation of article 14 of the Convention.
Consideration of admissibility
Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the communication 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.
The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it cannot consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in the present case, the complainant produced a copy of an email allegedly sent by the State Secretariat for Migration to the cantonal authorities in charge of the deportation, indicating the date of deportation and the fact that he would be accompanied by two intervention officers and two escorting officers. The Committee notes the complainant’s criticism of what he calls a level-four deportation. The State party submits that this claim was not raised before domestic authorities. The Committee cannot, in the first place, speculate about the manner in which the complainant would have been deported had he in fact been deported. Secondly, the Committee observes that the complainant simply asserts that there are no domestic remedies but does not state whether he tried to challenge the conditions of his deportation with the competent authorities or to find out whether there were any means of challenging them. In particular, the complainant does not explain why he did not take any steps before the authorities who decided in what circumstances he would be deported once he learned, by chance, as he put it, how the deportation would proceed. The Committee stresses that mere doubts about the success or effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve complainants of their obligations to exhaust them. The Committee concludes that, pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, this claim is inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted.
The Committee notes that the complainant did not claim that his rights under article 14 of the Convention had been violated until he commented on the State party’s observations and that as a result this claim was not one of those whose admissibility and merits the State party was invited to comment on. The complainant has not indicated why this claim could not have been made at an earlier stage of the proceedings. The Committee therefore finds this claim inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention.
The Committee is nonetheless of the view that the claim raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention and that those issues should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication, it declares it admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention.
In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return 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 subjected to torture.
The Committee must consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture if he were returned 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 a 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 subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. Moreover, the Committee notes that, since Ethiopia has not made the declaration provided for in article 22 (1) of the Convention, in the event of a violation of the complainant’s rights under the Convention in that country, he would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any kind.15
- Tahmuresi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/489/2012), para. 7.7. ↩
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to be shown to be “highly probable”, the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk.16 The Committee also recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 4 (2017), it gives considerable weight to findings of fact 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, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, to make a free assessment of the information available to it, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.17
In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been imprisoned and tortured in Ethiopia for his political activities and that a warrant for his arrest was ordered in his absence. The Committee notes first of all that, in the description of the facts in his communication, the complainant does not claim to have been subjected to torture by the Ethiopian authorities in the past. He submits that he was tortured in prison in the context of his complaint under article 3 of the Convention, while specifying, without providing any additional information, that he was “arbitrarily detained and tortured” and that he is “a former victim of torture and inhuman treatment”. The Committee then notes that the Swiss authorities, who have duly examined the form and substance of the alleged document from the Addis Ababa police station – which the complainant did not submit to the Committee – that is meant to prove that the complainant’s arrest had been ordered in his absence, have questioned its authenticity. In particular, the Committee notes that the Swiss authorities have apparently not called into question the credibility of the complainant’s claim that he was detained in 2005 in Ethiopia for political reasons. They argued, however, that the complainant’s claims that his participation in political demonstrations in 2005, which led to his imprisonment for one month and 20 days, was the direct cause of his flight from the country in 2012 were not credible. The Committee notes that the complainant has not produced any evidence for his claims.
The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland are not sustained and intense activities that could be considered a threat to the Ethiopian Government. In addition, the Committee takes note of the medical report dated 12 January 2022, which states that the complainant is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The Committee observes, however, that the complainant does not explain the discrepancy between the 5 years of imprisonment mentioned in this medical report and that of 1 month and 20 days mentioned to the Swiss asylum authorities.
In this context, the Committee nonetheless notes that, even if it were to accept the argument that the complainant was subjected to torture and ill-treatment in the past, the question that arises is whether he would be at risk of torture in Ethiopia at the present time if he were forcibly returned. The Committee also notes that, according to its jurisprudence, the onus is generally on the complainant to make an arguable case.18
- See, for example, S.L. v. Sweden (CAT/C/26/D/150/1999), para. 6.3, M.M.A.K. v. Germany (CAT/C/32/D/214/2002), para. 13.5, Zare v. Sweden (CAT/C/36/D/256/2004), para. 9.3, C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada (CAT/C/38/D/298/2006), para. 8.10, and N.B.-M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/47/D/347/2008), para. 9.9. ↩
The Committee is aware that, in many respects, the human rights situation in Ethiopia remains a concern.19 It nevertheless reiterates that the occurrence of human rights violations in a complainant’s country of origin is not, of itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant would face a personal risk of being tortured there. The Committee also notes that the complainant had ample opportunity to provide the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court with supporting evidence and more information about his claims. The evidence that has been provided, however, does not make it possible to conclude that his participation in political activities in Ethiopia and Switzerland could put him at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment upon his return to Ethiopia.
- See CAT/C/ETH/CO/2. ↩
Lastly, the Committee notes that in the context of a request for review by the complainant, the instance of first jurisdiction indicated an erroneous time limit for the submission of an appeal, as confirmed by the higher court. However, although it is regrettable that the complainant was unable to benefit from the longer legal limit, the Committee notes the Court’s argument, made in its decision of 26 October 2020, that the complainant has not demonstrated that he was put at any particular legal disadvantage as a result, since he was apparently able to prepare and submit an appeal.
On the basis of the information available to it, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has not demonstrated that his political activities are of such importance that they are likely to have attracted the interest of the authorities in his country of origin and concludes that this information does not show that he would run a personal, present, foreseeable and real risk of being tortured if he were returned to Ethiopia.20
- See, for example, M.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/60/D/662/2015), paras. 7.8 and 7.9, and D.R. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/63/D/673/2015), para. 7.9. ↩
The Committee is therefore of the view that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that he would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if he were returned to Ethiopia. Considering the Committee’s findings on the current human rights situation in Ethiopia,21 which appears to have worsened since the Federal Administrative Court delivered its decision of 26 October 2020, the Committee is of the opinion that, prior to implementing its decision to deport the complainant, the State party should conduct a thorough evaluation of both the current human rights situation in Ethiopia and the complainant’s medical situation as certified by the medical report of 12 January 2022.
- See CAT/C/ETH/CO/2. ↩
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the deportation of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention.