CAT/C/71/D/900/2018 also be noted that this allegation of wrongdoing was examined by the Federal Administrative Court after an appeal was lodged through counsel. 4.19 The complainant also claims that he was questioned in Tigrinya but that his mother tongue is Saho. Yet he stated at the first hearing and recorded on his personal data sheet that his mother tongue was Tigrinya.16 He said that he could understand the interpreter, he did not report any problems of communication with his interviewers and he requested only one correction to the record of the second hearing, after reading it in Tigrinya. Lastly, he confirmed that his statements had been accurately reflected in the records of the proceedings. The representative of a charitable organization, meanwhile, made no complaints about the hearing. There is nothing to suggest that the complainant encountered any problems of a linguistic nature. 4.20 In sum, there is no reason to diverge from the finding that the complainant’s claims lack credibility, especially as the proceedings before the relevant national bodies were properly conducted. Therefore, the complainant has not thoroughly demonstrated that he runs a personal, foreseeable, real and present risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if he is returned to Eritrea. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments of 13 August 2019, the complainant refers to the Common European Union Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information, which are cited by the State party. According to these guidelines, if it is generally the case that there is little information available on the country or the subject concerned, that should be taken into account. Since there is little verifiable information on the situation in Eritrea, the State party’s argument that the Federal Administrative Court has examined the situation in detail, drawing on a large number of sources, is not very convincing. Indeed, the Court itself acknowledged, in a twoand-a-half-page discussion, that it had some methodological reservations about all the available sources. The lack of information on the situation in Eritrea is confirmed by the very sources that are mentioned by the State party.17 The State party does not mention any sources to support its claim that an asylum seeker who left Eritrea illegally as a minor in order to avoid his current or future military obligations, who reached the age of majority in the host country and who was forced to return to Eritrea, would not be at risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment in Eritrea. The State party does not mention any sources to support the finding of the Court, in Reference Judgment D-7898/2015 of 30 January 2017, that Eritrean nationals had supposedly returned to the country from abroad without coming to any harm. This finding is therefore groundless. Given that the Court did not have enough comprehensive and reliable information to be able to assess the situation of young Eritrean returnees, the State party cannot legitimately claim, except tautologically, that the Court carried out a thorough analysis of the available information in this case. 5.2 As a draft evader and a young man of recruitable age, the complainant belongs ipso facto to a vulnerable group, and therefore to a group that is at risk of being exposed to treatment that violates international law. The fact that a person belongs to such a group is a deciding factor in the assessment of whether he or she would be at risk in the event of expulsion. The European Court of Human Rights has established that desertion constitutes a risk factor in cases of expulsion to Eritrea.18 The complainant also refers to the case of X v. Denmark,19 in which the Human Rights Committee found that the expulsion of the author to 16 17 18 19 GE.21-13784 The State party provides a copy of this bilingual data sheet, which is written in Tigrinya and German. According to the sheet, the complainant was born on 1 January 1998, his mother tongue is Tigrinya and he is a Christian. The sheet is dated 9 September 2015 but is not signed. European Asylum Support Office, Country of Origin Information Report: Eritrea – National Service and Illegal Exit (November 2016), p. 15. European Court of Human Rights, Said v. Netherlands (application No. 2345/02), judgment of 5 July 2005, paras. 54–55. CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010. 9