CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 person who had not completed his military service requirement in Eritrea and thus ran a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the requirements of article 7.18 3.12 Lastly, the complainant refers political activities undertaken in exile against the current Eritrean Government.19 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 4 September 2017, the State party submitted observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. On admissibility, the State party argues that the complainant has not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him. Citing the Committee’s practice, the State party notes that the case file does not suggest either that the advance payment of fees requested prevented the complainant from exhausting this remedy or that the remedy would have been futile. 20 4.2 On the merits, the State party recalls the elements that must be taken into account to ascertain the existence of a personal, present and serious danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the country of origin: evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations in the country of origin; any claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and independent evidence to support those claims; the political activity of the author within or outside the country of origin; any evidence as to the credibility of the author; and any factual inconsistencies in the author’s claims.21 4.3 The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin. The Committee must establish whether the complainant is “personally” at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned. 22 Additional grounds must be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as foreseeable, real and personal for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Convention. 23 The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 24 4.4 The State party then describes the Swiss authorities’ practice of processing asylum applications from Eritrean nationals. The State Secretariat for Migration constantly evaluates reports on Eritrea and exchanges information with experts and authorities from partner countries. On that basis, it gives an updated appraisal of the situation, which serves as a basis for Swiss asylum practice. In May 2015, the Secretariat prepared a report entitled “Erythrée — Étude de pays” (Eritrea: Country study), which brings together all this information. This report was reviewed by four partner asylum and migration authorities, an external expert and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). 25 In February and March 2016, the Secretariat conducted a mission to review, further develop and complement this information by including other sources that have become available in the meantime. On the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.3. He attaches a letter from the Eritrean People’s Democratic Party dated 18 March 2016 attesting that the complainant is a member of the Swiss branch of the party and has been involved in activities such as organizing meetings, disseminating information, mobilizing young people for democratic change and other activities. The letter states that, as a member of this main opposition party, the complainant will not be safe in the event of his return since he would face imprisonment and torture and even the risk of loss of life. See inter alia, A.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/14/D/24/1995), para. 3, and L.O. v. Canada (CAT/C/24/D/95/1997), para. 6.5. Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 of the Convention, para. 8. K.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para. 10.2. Ibid., para. 10.5, and J.U.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/21/D/100/1997), paras. 6.3 and 6.5. General comment No. 1, para. 6. www.easo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/public/Eritrea-Report-Final.pdf. The report, published by EASO, was reviewed by the national asylum and migration departments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Germany, and by Dan Connell, an external expert who has been working on Eritrea for over 25 years as a journalist, lecturer and researcher. GE.19-01118