CAT/C/71/D/900/2018 8.9 The Committee considers that the inconsistencies mentioned by the State party and the domestic authorities are not significant enough to cast doubt on the complainant’s credibility. For example, the State party notes that during the first hearing, the complainant stated that the round-ups in his village had occurred in May 2015, whereas during the second hearing, he claimed that these round-ups had taken place three or four months before he left Eritrea, that is to say, in February and March 2015. The Committee considers this contradiction to be relatively minor. Furthermore, in view of the lack of information available about the methods of recruitment used to conscript young persons in Eritrea, the Committee considers that the Federal Administrative Court failed to justify its conclusion that it was not plausible that soldiers would have asked the complainant to present himself at school with his parents for the purposes of conscription. As regards the Court’s argument that the complainant failed to show that he had been in contact with the military authorities, the Committee considers that the complainant plausibly explained that this lack of contact was due to the fact that he ran away and hid during the round-ups. As to the State party’s claim that there is no reason to presume that the complainant would have been affected by these round-ups, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, round-ups were often carried out in his village. The Committee considers that the complainant’s claims regarding round-ups are compatible with the information that is available on the general situation in Eritrea, as described by the State Secretariat for Migration in the report published by the European Asylum Support Office in September 2019.35 While noting that, according to the State party, the complainant cannot be considered a potential conscript solely on the grounds that he dropped out of school, the Committee considers that, in view of the information that is available on the situation in Eritrea, it is plausible that the complainant was targeted simply because of his age.36 8.10 In view of the complainant’s claims that soldiers targeted him for conscription twice, prompting him to leave his country illegally; in view of the recent reports concerning the widespread conscription of young people, particularly boys and men, in Eritrea and the possibility that draft evaders and those who left the country illegally may be subjected to torture on their return; and in view of the shortage of reliable information regarding the level of risk involved in such cases, the Committee cannot conclude in the present case that the complainant does not face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if he is returned to Eritrea. His return would therefore constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 9. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the return of the complainant to Eritrea would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. Having reached that conclusion, the Committee does not consider it necessary to examine the claim made under article 16 of the Convention. 10. The Committee is of the view that, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, the State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to Eritrea. 11. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 35 36 14 European Asylum Support Office, Eritrea National Service, Exit, and Return – Country of Origin Information Report (September 2019). See, inter alia, Human Rights Watch, “They Are Making Us into Slaves, Not Educating Us” – How Indefinite Conscription Restricts Young People’s Rights, Access to Education in Eritrea (August 2019). GE.21-13784