CAT/C/71/D/900/2018 make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 27 8.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that, in order to conscript him into the army, soldiers came to his home twice, in vain, and then issued a summons stating that he must go to the school, accompanied by his parents. According to the complainant, the fact that he is a draft evader who left Eritrea illegally puts him at risk of being subjected to torture if he were to be returned to the country. On the other hand, the Committee notes that, according to the State party, 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 have been considered to be implausible. 8.4 The Committee notes the course of the complainant’s asylum application procedure before the Swiss authorities. In this regard, it recalls that the right to an effective remedy contained in article 3 of the Convention requires, in this context, an opportunity for an effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or return someone, once that decision has been made, when there is a plausible allegation that article 3 issues have arisen.28 The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the hearings on his reasons for seeking asylum should have been conducted in Saho, not Tigrinya. He claims to have mentioned that his mother tongue was Saho at the hearing with the Swiss authorities concerning his reasons for seeking asylum and to have been told that there were no Saho interpreters available in Switzerland but that one could be called in from Germany. He reportedly then agreed to be questioned in Tigrinya, so as not to delay the proceedings. The Committee notes that, according to the record of the second hearing, the complainant stated that his mother tongue was Tigrinya and that his knowledge of this language had improved since his arrival in Switzerland. He also provided information about his date of birth, ethnicity and religion that was consistent with the information provided in the present communication. According to the record in question, the complainant did not report any problems of communication with his interviewers and confirmed, at the end of the hearing, that he had understood the interpreter. The Committee notes that he requested only one correction to the record of the second hearing, after reading it in Tigrinya. Lastly, the complainant confirmed that his statements had been accurately reflected in the records of the proceedings. Consequently, the Committee considers that in this case, it is unable to conclude from the available information that conducting the hearings in Tigrinya constituted a violation by the State party of the obligation to undertake an effective, independent and impartial review, under article 3 of the Convention. 8.5 As regards the time taken to process his asylum application, the Committee recalls that in its procedure for assessing a non-refoulement claim, the State party should provide the person concerned with fundamental guarantees and safeguards, especially if the person has been deprived of his or her liberty or is in a particularly vulnerable situation, such as the situation of an asylum seeker or an unaccompanied minor. 29 In the present case, the Committee is of the view that the period of 18 months that elapsed between the brief preliminary hearing and the full hearing on the complainant’s reasons for seeking asylum does not, in itself, constitute a procedural error in the processing of his application. However, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have submitted the application at the age of 17 years and 1 month. The Committee also notes that during the brief preliminary hearing on his reasons for seeking asylum, the complainant, who was 17 years old at the time, was assisted by a guardian (legal representative) who had been assigned to him by the Court for Adult and Child Protection of the Canton of Geneva in 2015. The Committee further notes that the second hearing, which took place when the complainant was 18 years old, was held in the presence of an independent representative of a charitable organization but not a guardian or legal representative responsible for assisting the complainant. The Committee also notes that the State party has not explained why the full hearing was not held when the complainant was still a minor and eligible for greater protection on account of his age. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the time taken to process the application 27 28 29 12 Ibid., para. 50. M.G. v. Switzerland, para. 7.4. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, para. 40. GE.21-13784