CAT/C/71/D/900/2018 available information on Eritrea, in accordance with the quality standards and scientific methods approved by the European Union authorities and member State authorities that are responsible for issues relating to migration, especially asylum and removal. Keeping in mind the challenges faced by those seeking information on Eritrea, the Court took into consideration not only the facts reported, quite a while ago in some cases, by international human rights organizations, but also the facts reported more recently by foreign journalists and specialists from European authorities in the context of information-gathering missions to the country. The Court therefore examined the situation in Eritrea in great detail, over tens of pages, drawing on a large number of sources. It evaluated the information, reports and arguments contained in those sources very carefully. In its judgments on recent cases concerning Eritrea, including Judgment E-1218/2019 of 16 April 2019, the Court confirmed its earlier findings. That is why the State party considers those judgments to be relevant to the present case. 4.5 According to the Swiss migration authorities, refusal to perform military service and desertion are not, in themselves, enough to justify recognition as a refugee. However, asylum seekers must be recognized as refugees in cases where refusal to serve or desertion entails persecution. If the examination of an individual case reveals that the person concerned would be not only punished in order to ensure his or her compliance with military obligations but also considered a political opponent and subjected to disproportionate punishment and inhuman treatment, the person is considered to be at risk of persecution under refugee law. 4.6 The Federal Administrative Court has noted that refusal to serve and desertion are severely punished in Eritrea. The penalty that is imposed is generally accompanied by imprisonment in inhuman conditions, and often by torture, since desertion and refusal to serve are considered acts of protest against the regime. As such, this penalty constitutes a form of persecution, and a well-founded fear of being exposed to it leads to recognition as a refugee. However, a fear of this kind is only well founded if the person concerned has already actually been in contact with the military authority or another authority, provided this contact implied that the person would soon be recruited (for example, the receipt of a summons from the army). It is not enough for there to be merely a possibility that the person may receive a summons at some point in the future. Moreover, the fact that the person may have to do military service is not, in itself, decisive. The question of whether the potential enlistment of the person concerned in the national service upon his or her return to Eritrea would constitute treatment that is prohibited by international law therefore relates to the question of whether removal is lawful and enforceable. The execution of a removal order is unlawful in cases where Switzerland, under public international law, cannot force a foreign national to travel to a given country and where no other State has declared that it is willing to receive the person, in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement. Under domestic law, a removal order is unenforceable if the removal or expulsion of the foreign national to his or her country of origin would actually put him or her in danger, for example if there is a war, a civil war or widespread violence or if the person needs medical treatment. 4.7 Since June 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration has taken the position that the mere fact that a person left Eritrea illegally does not expose that person to certain persecution upon return to the country. Consequently, Eritrean nationals who have not yet been summoned for national military service, who are exempt from service or who have been released from service are no longer recognized as refugees on that basis alone. Nevertheless, the State Secretariat still examines every asylum application carefully. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed and explained this practice in the reference judgments mentioned above. 4.8 In Reference Judgment D-7898/2015 of 30 January 2017, the Federal Administrative Court discussed the likelihood of Eritreans who had left their country illegally being persecuted on those grounds if they returned to the country. The Court summarized its findings recently in Judgment E-1218/2019 of 16 April 2019. After a thorough analysis of the available information, it reached the conclusion that the practice of granting refugee status solely on the grounds of illegal departure from Eritrea could no longer be followed. This assessment is based primarily on the observation that members of the Eritrean diaspora, some of whom left the country illegally, are able to return to Eritrea for short stays without coming to any harm. Consequently, individuals who left Eritrea without authorization can no longer 6 GE.21-13784