CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 5.2 With regard to admissibility, it is clear from the file that the complainant is destitute,43 which is not refuted by the State party. He had therefore requested a waiver of advance fees. Consequently, he cannot be required to pay the amount requested, nor can meeting the requirement to exhaust all domestic remedies be made dependent on such payment. It is precisely because of the requirement of an advance payment of fees that the complainant did not benefit from a thorough and diligent examination of his file by an independent judicial body. Since he challenged the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration by filing an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court, the State party’s argument that the complainant had not exhausted domestic remedies is not relevant. 5.3 On the merits, the complainant challenges the change in position of the Secretariat since June 2016 when it considers that the illegal departure from Eritrea no longer constitutes a risk of persecution on its own. He refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the quality standards to be respected by State authorities in the processing of information on the countries of origin of asylum seekers and to the different (minimum) standards contained in European directives, 44 in European Union guidelines (also mentioned in the case law of the Federal Administrative Court) 45 and in the general principles applicable to administrative procedures. These sources confirm the binding nature of quality standards in the processing of country of origin information. 46 5.4 Referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the use of country of origin information standards,47 the complainant points out that this decision was adopted on the basis of a mission carried out between February and March 2016, on which the State Secretariat for Migration gives more weight to the information from the Eritrean authorities and international diplomatic sources than non-governmental and international organizations. The information coming from the Eritrean regime and international diplomatic sources is also vague. The sources on which this change in practice is based are therefore extremely poor. In addition, they are often quoted out of context. In view of the above, the basis used by the Secretariat as a source of information to justify its decision to change its practice cannot be considered sufficient. 5.5 Even if this new practice was confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court, the Court’s assessment is misguided, since it is based on unclear and insufficient information from which unfounded conclusions are drawn. First of all, the question of what risk the complainant faces in the event of voluntary return does not arise, as he is opposed to returning to his country of origin because there is a risk, in the light of his age, of being conscripted into the Eritrean army. The complainant categorically refuses to submit to the obligation to perform military service because he considers that it would constitute forced labour.48 43 44 45 46 47 48 10 He includes a certificate in the case file relating to his social assistance situation, issued by ORS on 1 October 2018, which points out: between 10 June 2014 and 19 September 2014, social assistance amounted to 12 francs per day, or 360 francs per month; between 20 September 2014 and 30 April 2016, after being provided with shared accommodation, social assistance amounted to 415 francs per month; and as from 1 May 2016, following a negative asylum decision, the complainant received emergency assistance amounting to 10 francs per day, or 300 francs per month. The complainant invokes in particular paragraph 39 and article 45 (2) (b) of directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection and article 4 (3) (a) of directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011. European Union, Gemeinsame EU-Leitlinien für die Bearbeitung von Informationen über Herkunftsländer (IOC), April 2008 (www.ecoi.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/ 07/coi_leitlinien2008-04-de.pdf). R. Mattern, “COI-Standards: Die Verwendung von Herkunftsländerinformationen (COI) in Entscheiden der Asylinstanzen”, Asyl 3/10, pp. 3–12. N.A. v. the United Kingdom, No. 25904/07, 17 July 2008, paras. 119–121, and Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011, paras. 232–234. According to UNHCR, the absence of the possibility of refusal to serve on grounds of conscience is the basis for the need for international protection when the person concerned would be exposed to inhuman conditions while performing military service; see UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 10, para. 31. GE.19-01118