CAT/C/71/D/900/2018 were lawful.10 Given that the Court expressly refrained from deciding on the lawfulness of forced removals, it is hard to understand how the Court subsequently reached the conclusion that returning the complainant, who was a draft evader and therefore likely to be subject to forced removal, would not be against international law. 3.8 The complainant also argues that returning him to Eritrea, where he would be exposed to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, would constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention. According to several reliable reports, military service in Eritrea amounts to slavery and forced labour.11 The Federal Administrative Court did not properly explain why it had diverged from this position. To date, the situation in Eritrea has not improved. 12 State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 In its observations of 7 June 2019, the State party provides detailed information on asylum procedures in Switzerland and asserts that the complaint ought to be rejected on the merits. The State party recalls the considerations that must be taken into account in assessing whether the complainant runs a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture upon return to his country of origin: evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of origin; any claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and independent evidence to support those claims; the political activity of the complainant within or outside the country of origin; and any evidence as to the credibility of the complainant and the general veracity of his claims, despite some inconsistencies in his presentation of the facts or some lapses of memory. 4.2 The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be subjected to torture upon return to that country. 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. Additional grounds must be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as “foreseeable, real and personal”. The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 4.3 The State party then describes the Swiss authorities’ practice when it comes to processing asylum applications from Eritrean nationals. The State Secretariat for Migration constantly evaluates reports on Eritrea and exchanges information with experts and partner authorities. On that basis, it gives an updated appraisal of the situation, which serves as a basis for Swiss asylum practice. In May 2015, the State Secretariat prepared a report entitled Érythrée – Étude de pays (Eritrea – Country Focus), which brings together all this information. This report was approved by four partner authorities, a scientific expert and the European Asylum Support Office. In February and March 2016, members of the State Secretariat undertook a mission to Eritrea in order to review, develop and supplement this information, in the light of other sources that had become available in the meantime. The Secretariat published an update, based on all the information gathered, on 10 August 2016. 13 In reports published between December 2015 and August 2016, several national authorities – such as those of Sweden and Norway, and the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – reached similar conclusions. 4.4 Since January 2017, the Federal Administrative Court has handed down three reference judgments concerning Eritrea,14 in which it discusses specific limitations relating to the availability of information on the situation in Eritrea. In its judgment of 10 July 2018, the Court also devoted two and a half pages to discussing the shortcomings of some important categories of sources regarding Eritrea and stated that it had some methodological reservations about all the available sources. In that judgment, the Court took into account the 10 11 12 13 14 GE.21-13784 Switzerland, Federal Administrative Court, Reference Judgment E-5022/2017, 10 July 2018. A/HRC/32/47, paras. 65–68. Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2017/18: The State of the World’s Human Rights, pp. 188–190; and A/HRC/38/50, para. 100. State Secretariat for Migration, “Focus Eritrea: Update Nationaldienst und illegale Ausreise” (Focus on Eritrea: Update on National Service and Illegal Exit), 10 August 2016. Judgments D-7898/2015 of 30 January 2017, D-2311/2016 of 17 August 2017 and E-5022/2017 of 10 July 2018. 5