CAT/C/68/D/882/2018 4.3 With regard to the evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the State concerned, the State party submits that, in accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, it is necessary to determine whether the complainant is at personal risk of torture, as the existence of a pattern of violations is not sufficient grounds for concluding that a person would be at risk of torture on returning to his or her country. In the present case, the State party is aware that the situation of some Mapuche activists in Araucanía is troubling in many respects but is of the view that not every Chilean Mapuche faces a risk of persecution. The State party, referring to a programme broadcast on France 24 on 26 October 2018,19 argues that the unrest mainly involves activists who are part of a resistance group struggling for autonomy and who represent only a small minority of the Mapuche; consequently, no attempts are being made to harm either the Mapuche community as a whole or the complainant in particular. 4.4 Furthermore, the State party maintains that the complainant makes no mention of any acts of torture or ill-treatment to which she herself has been subjected. The State party is of the view that the reasons given by the complainant to explain why she did not encounter any problems with the Chilean State in 2008 – that she was accompanied by NGO representatives – are unconvincing, because if she had been on the radar of the Chilean authorities, it would have been easy for them to apprehend her during her stays in Chile in 1998 or 2003. The State party thus concludes that the allegations of torture or illtreatment are unfounded. 4.5 The State party does not deny that the political activities undertaken by the complainant in Chile or elsewhere with a view to asserting the rights of the Mapuche minority have given her a certain visibility on the international stage. The State party submits, however, that the complainant does not demonstrate in what way her political or other peaceful activities as Ambassador of the Mapuche Permanent Mission to the United Nations have made her a target of the Chilean authorities. The State party notes the Committee’s practice, according to which the family members of a person whose political prominence is likely to jeopardize his or her safety should be afforded the same protection when they carry out comparable activities and are exposed to risks of the same nature. However, it is of the view that the complainant is much less politically active than her sister, who is the leader of her community and an internationally known activist, or other members of her family in respect of whom, as a result of their activism and political activities, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested the adoption of precautionary measures. The State party also notes that the discriminatory application of the CounterTerrorism Act to Mapuche community activists alleged by the complainant is contested by the Chilean State, which, in its reply of 11 March 2014 to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, stated that the Counter-Terrorism Act was used in Chile only in extraordinary circumstances and was not invoked in a systematic, habitual or discriminatory way against the Mapuche people or any other indigenous people. 4.6 Finally, with regard to the credibility of the allegations, the State party maintains that the complainant has admitted that she has never had any problems with the Chilean authorities, that she was able to renew her Chilean passport without encountering any obstacles and that on several occasions she requested permission to travel abroad to participate in public events in support of the rights of the Mapuche community, all of which strongly suggests that she does not fear that the Chilean State will issue a warrant for her arrest or take other steps to prosecute her. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 18 April 2019, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. She maintains that the information listed in paragraph 49 of the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) is non-exhaustive and that any other pertinent information must also be taken into account. 5.2 The complainant first notes that harassment and violations of the rights of minority groups can be evidence of a consistent pattern of human rights violations. 20 She then notes 19 20 GE.20-00012 France 24, « Chili, la révolte mapuche », video reportage, 26 October 2018, available at: https://www.france24.com/fr/20181026-reporters-chili-mapuche-terres-indigenes-conflit-occupation. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 8.7. 7