CAT/C/71/D/900/2018 perform national service. The possibility that the complainant might be required to do national military service upon his return to Eritrea contravenes neither article 3 nor article 16 of the Convention. 4.15 The complainant does not claim to have been tortured or ill-treated in his country of origin. There is also nothing in his case file to suggest that members of his family have been exposed to such treatment, for example as a result of his departure. He does not claim to have engaged in political activity within or outside his country of origin. As regards his personal situation, the complainant argues that he would be at risk of being subjected to treatment that is prohibited by article 3 of the Convention because he has reached the age of majority. However, as is clear from the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, the mere fact that a person left Eritrea illegally no longer justifies recognition as a refugee, and there is only a risk of penalties upon return in cases where additional negative factors are involved. According to this case law, only if such factors were involved would the complainant be considered an undesirable person by the Eritrean authorities. Despite the fears expressed by the complainant, there are no such factors involved in this case. There is no evidence in the case file that the complainant avoided military service. The complainant has not, at any stage of the proceedings, provided credible evidence that he was officially targeted for recruitment or that he refused to comply with a military summons. He is therefore wrong to call himself a “young draft evader”. The sole fact that he left his country illegally and then reached the age for enlistment does not mean that he can be classed as someone who avoided military service. 4.16 The complainant criticizes the national authorities for considering that his account lacked credibility. Contrary to his claims, this lack of credibility was noted by both the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. The Court noted, in particular, that his claims lacked substance and that his statements about soldiers visiting his home were mere conjectures that he failed to substantiate. According to the Court, his claim that the request that he present himself at school with his parents should be understood as a military summons was clearly illogical, for it was hard to imagine, given the situation in the country, that soldiers trying to recruit young people would ask them to come with their parents. In his communication, the complainant does not provide any information that would be conducive to a different interpretation of the situation. In particular, the argument that 16-year-olds are also in danger of being enlisted is not relevant by itself, since it does not relate to the complainant’s individual situation, bearing in mind that he has not shown that he was, at any point in his life, in contact with the military authorities or targeted by them. 4.17 In fact, at his first hearing, the complainant simply stated that he had left his country because there had been round-ups in his region. There is no reason to presume that he was likely to be affected by those round-ups, and he cannot be considered a potential recruit solely on the grounds that he dropped out of school. In addition to this, when he was asked at his second hearing about his reasons for seeking asylum, the complainant initially admitted that he had left Eritrea because the living conditions were difficult and because he wanted a better future; it was only later that he mentioned the round-ups. In his communication, the complainant does not present any new arguments relating to the credibility of his reasons for seeking asylum; he simply contests the national authorities’ assessment of the facts. 4.18 The complainant then makes several references to procedural errors. To begin with, he claims that the State Secretariat for Migration waited, unfairly, for him to reach the age of majority before holding the second hearing; in doing so, it prevented him from being assisted by a guardian and thus from being able to present his reasons for seeking asylum in a clear and concise manner. However, this accusation is not based on anything concrete. The second hearing was indeed held 18 months after the first one, but there is no evidence to suggest that this was a premeditated attempt to deprive him of procedural safeguards. The complainant was able to freely express his reasons for seeking asylum at that hearing, in which a representative of a charitable organization also participated, with his consent. The representative raised no concerns about the record of the proceedings or the hearing itself. Ultimately, if the complainant and his guardians felt that the proceedings before the State Secretariat were taking too long, they could and should have raised the issue with the Secretariat in a timely manner; they did not do this at any point in the proceedings. It should 8 GE.21-13784