CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 5.6 The complainant is also opposed to the obligation to sign a “letter of regret” and to pay a 2 per cent tax 49 in order to benefit from the privileged status to be considered a member of the diaspora. He considers that if he signed the letter of repentance, he would implicitly acknowledge that he had committed an offence by leaving Eritrea and would accept any penalties that might be imposed on him for that reason.50 The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) report of May 2015 on Eritrea states that the above-mentioned letter and 2 per cent tax provides no guarantee against punishment and that signing the letter of repentance implies directly confessing to an offence and declaring a willingness to accept the relevant punishment.51 5.7 In addition, the Federal Administrative Court does not present a final conclusion on the return of Eritreans who fled their country and were forcibly repatriated but only raises the issue and considers that, in any case, Eritrean nationals can return freely to their country. However, there is not enough reliable information to conclude that the Eritrean authorities would no longer punish forcibly returned Eritreans as severely as before. On the contrary, various sources show that illegal departure is still considered a crime against the nation and is unduly punished by the Eritrean regime. 52 In the case of M.O. v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights also held that, in the presence of an asylum application filed by an Eritrean national close to the age or of age for performing military service who has offered a plausible explanation for his illegal exit from the country, the authority is required to remove any doubt as to the risk of ill-treatment.53 5.8 The complainant then challenges the State party’s claim that living conditions in Eritrea have improved, arguing that the positive developments referred to by the Federal Administrative Court were based only on information coming from the Eritrean regime. The Court also acknowledged that the economic situation remained difficult and recalled that it is a single-party regime, that there is no separation of powers, that the surveillance of citizens was very complex and well developed and that detentions were arbitrary and could target anyone.54 5.9 With regard to the State party’s assertion that forced recruitment into the Eritrean national service does not constitute a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, the complainant emphasizes that the State party does not explain which sources of information it bases this conclusion on. The State party only refers to the Federal Administrative Court judgment of 31 January 2017, which also does not support why this practice does not constitute a form of ill-treatment. In fact, the Court has not yet made an explicit statement on this subject. This point is particularly important, since the complainant’s request for protection is based on the fact that he refuses to serve in the Eritrean national service. In the present case, in addition to the draconian punishment for evading military obligations, the complainant risks being forcibly enlisted in the Eritrean army in the event of his return, which is not disputed by the State party. Being subjected to 49 50 51 52 53 54 GE.19-01118 See footnote 26 above. The levying of this tax was strongly condemned by the Security Council in paragraph 10 of its resolution 2023 (2011). Under the Eritrean Proclamation on National Service, any insubordination in time of war is punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years. Furthermore, the Swiss authorities recognize that sanctions are imposed arbitrarily and extrajudicially in Eritrea. EASO report May 2015, p. 43. See also Upper Tribunal of the United Kingdom, MST and others (national service — risk categories) (CG) [2016] UKUT 443 (IAC), para. 334, in which the Tribunal held that there was no evidence to suggest that the letter of repentance and the payment of the tax would enable draft evaders and deserters to reconcile with the Eritrean authorities. “L’ONU critique le durcissement de la Suisse envers les Érythréens”, Le Temps, 17 February 2017 (www.letemps.ch/suisse/lonu-critique-durcissement-suisse-envers-erythreens). M.O. v. Switzerland, para. 79. Amnesty Switzerland took a position following the Federal Administrative Court ruling on the possible return of rejected Eritrean asylum seekers, indicating that those who have left the country illegally risk imprisonment or other penalties: “Érythrée: la sécurité des personnes renvoyées n’est pas garantie” (Eritrea: The safety of returned persons is not guaranteed), Amnesty Switzerland, press release issued on 31 August 2017 (www.amnesty.ch/fr/pays/europe-asiecentrale/suisse/docs/2017/erythree-la-securite-des-personnes-renvoyees-pas-garantie). 11