CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 were only subject to an early and summary assessment by the Federal Administrative Court to determine the likely outcome of the proceedings, without an effective examination of his appeal having been carried out. This remedy was therefore not available to the complainant. 6.5 In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the objection of inadmissibility on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be upheld in the present case. In the absence of any other question as to the admissibility of the complaint, the Committee declares it admissible given that it raises questions under articles 3 and 16 of the Convention and that the facts and basis of the complainant’s claims have been duly substantiated,62 and proceeds with the consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 In the present case, the Committee must determine whether, by returning the complainant to Eritrea, the State party would be in breach of its obligation under articles 3 and 16 of the Convention not to expel or return an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s conclusion that there is no indication that there are substantial grounds for fearing that he would face a specific and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Eritrea and that his allegations and evidence were considered implausible. The Committee notes, however, that the State party concedes that there is little information on the authorities’ response to forced returns and that the State party appears to have accepted the likelihood that the complainant will be required to perform military service in Eritrea while not commenting on the compatibility of this practice with the rights under the Convention. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, in which she concludes the following: that the overall human rights situation in Eritrea remains grim since, among other things, the military/national service, which the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea found reasonable grounds to believe constituted no less than the enslavement of a whole population, a crime against humanity, remains indefinite; that torture and other inhumane acts continue to be committed; and that detainees are especially vulnerable to human rights violations, including torture, as legal procedures and safeguards, such as access to family members, lawyers and doctors, are denied. 63 7.4 In this context, the Committee takes note of the course of the complainant’s asylum application procedure before the Swiss authorities. It notes the inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s statements and submissions, to which the State party has drawn attention. However, the Committee observes that the complainant was not provided with legal counsel during the proceedings before the State Secretariat for Migration, that he was heard in a language other than his mother tongue despite his express request in this respect and that the Swiss authorities based their reasoning on questioning of the genuineness of the documents produced by the complainant without having taken any measures to verify their genuineness. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the right to an effective remedy contained in article 3 requires, in this context, an opportunity for effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or return, once that decision is made, when there is a plausible allegation that article 3 issues arise. 64 In the present case, the State party did not give the complainant the opportunity to demonstrate the risks he would face in the event of forced return to Eritrea. The Federal Administrative Court only carried out an early and summary assessment of the complainant’s arguments while questioning the genuineness of the documents provided but without taking any measures to verify it. Furthermore, the requirement to pay legal fees when the complainant was facing financial hardship denied him the opportunity to apply to have his appeal 62 63 64 14 K.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/39/D/308/2006), para. 7.2. A/HRC/38/50, para. 108 (b), (c) and (h). Agiza v. Sweden, para. 13.7. GE.19-01118