CAT/C/71/D/900/2018 State party’s additional observations on the merits 6.1 In its additional observations of 26 September 2019, the State party maintains its position and states that it does not carry out forced removals of Eritreans, because Eritrea does not allow such measures to be taken against its nationals. Forced removal of such persons is therefore impossible, which means that there is no need to examine whether it is lawful. However, it is possible for the complainant to leave voluntarily, provided he takes the necessary steps. 6.2 On 9 January 2020, the State party transmitted to the Committee its response, dated 7 January 2020, to the joint request concerning the situation of Eritrean asylum seekers in Switzerland that was made on 19 June 2019 by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In its response, the State party notes, among other things, that the State Secretariat for Migration continually reviews the situation in Eritrea and adjusts its asylum and removal practices if necessary. The State party then describes in detail how these practices have changed since 2012. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not 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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it does not consider any communication 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 has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on these or any other grounds. As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the present complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 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. 8.2 In the present case, the Committee must first determine whether the removal of the complainant to Eritrea would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which: (a) the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination; and (b) the Committee’s practice has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.25 It also recalls that the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when complainants are in a situation where they cannot elaborate on their case, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based.26 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will 25 26 GE.21-13784 General comment No. 4, para. 11. Ibid., para. 38. 11