CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 annexed to the minutes of 17 February 2016 did not mention any difficulties of understanding during the complainant’s hearing. In addition, the content of the minutes appeared to be both clear and comprehensive and therefore sufficient to make an informed decision. Consequently, the investigating judge declared this complaint to be unfounded a priori, noting that the lower authority had correctly held that Tigrinya was another suitable language for the hearing. The communication before the Committee does not contain any new arguments that would call into question this analysis. 4.14 In addition, the complainant did not present any evidence during the proceedings that he had been in so much danger in his country as to have to go into exile. The State Secretariat for Migration also found the failure of the complainant to present any identity document or piece of evidence during the two years that the ordinary proceedings had lasted was such that his statements remained questionable from the outset. 40 Before the Secretariat, as before the Committee, he simply stated that he had never possessed any documents and it does not appear from the Secretariat files that he had taken any concrete steps towards submitting any original birth certificate, school diploma or baptism certificate, for example. The argument that the complainant, born on 1 February 1989, was a minor when he left Eritrea and was thus without an identity document is clearly false since, according to his own account, he left the country in 2010, at the age of 21. 4.15 In view of the implausibility of the complainant’s statements, the State Secretariat for Migration concluded that it could legitimately consider that the complainant had never been arrested or imprisoned by the Eritrean authorities, that he had never been involved in any judicial proceedings and that he had not engaged in any political or religious activities likely to cause him harm. In addition, the Secretariat considered that his illegal departure was not credible. Lastly, the likelihood that the complainant will be required to fulfil military obligations in Eritrea in the future cannot in itself be relevant within the meaning of the Convention. 4.16 Even if it were assumed that the complainant had left his country of origin under the alleged circumstances, according to recent Federal Administrative Court case law amending past practice and confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, an illegal departure from Eritrea is no longer sufficient, in itself, to justify the recognition of refugee status. In the case against Switzerland cited by the complainant, 41 the author had put forward arguments similar to those of the complainant in the present complaint. The Court held that, since it was impossible to confirm an illegal exit from Eritrea, particular attention should be paid to the plausibility of the testimony of the person concerned. 42 4.17 Lastly, with regard to the complainant’s assertion that he was not represented by legal counsel at his hearings, in order to defend his choice of language and explain the importance of his signature on the minutes, the complainant was informed at the start of the hearings of the options for assistance available to him and of his responsibility as to the truth of his statements, on which the authorities would base their decision. In terms of the invitation to the hearing on the grounds for asylum, the applicant was also advised that he would be entitled to be assisted, at his own expense, by a representative of his choice. 4.18 In conclusion, there is nothing to indicate the existence of substantial grounds for fearing that the complainant would face a specific and personal risk of being tortured on his return to Eritrea. His allegations and the evidence provided do not warrant a finding that his return would expose him to a real, concrete and personal risk of being tortured. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 22 December 2017, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. 40 41 42 GE.19-01118 The State party refers to the Federal Administrative Court’s assessment of the genuineness of a school certificate dated 29 March 2016 and a baptismal certificate dated 25 March 2016, see para. 2.6. M.O. v. Switzerland. Ibid., para. 77. 9