CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 a national service such as that which exists in Eritrea constitutes forced labour 55 and can be described as a form of slavery. 56 5.10 The State party alleges that the complainant used selective information that did not include any details of the treatment of persons accused only of illegal exit from the country. The complainant takes issue with this assessment on the basis of the decisions in MST and others of the British Upper Tribunal and M.O. v. Switzerland of the European Court of Human Rights, which hold that an Eritrean person risks serious punishment in the event of illegal departure from the country and if he is of age to perform his military service. 57 Furthermore, the State party has not commented in any way on the complainant’s argument that, as a young man of age to perform his military service, he has a risk profile. Thus, the State party failed in its duty to give reasons for its judgment and violated the complainant’s right to be heard. 5.11 The complainant also reiterates that he did not have a representative during the hearings. No one was therefore able to defend his choice of language and explain to him the importance of his signature on the minutes, i.e. that it could be used against him. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that the asylum hearing was conducted in Tigrinya with the author’s agreement. 5.12 The complainant also notes that, contrary to the State party’s assessment, he attested to his membership of the opposition party in exile, the Eritrean People’s Democratic Party, and indicates that he has regularly participated in demonstrations in Switzerland against the Eritrean regime.58 5.13 With regard to the State party’s refusal to admit the complainant’s explanation of his alleged contradiction over the way he was released from prison, the complainant explains that this contradiction is the result of his lack of command of the language in which the hearing was conducted. In fact, it is very likely that he used the word “released” incorrectly. Therefore, it is possible that there had been a misunderstanding with the interpreter. This contradictory fact therefore clearly cannot be given much weight. Moreover, the complainant was not confronted with this “contradiction” and consequently did not have the opportunity to clarify it at his second hearing. 5.14 The complainant also points out that he was summoned by the local authorities to be recruited for the army. It is not surprising that the military authorities did not travel to the complainant’s village. The report cited by the State Secretariat for Migration59 emphasizes in this regard that the Eritrean military authorities have neither the capacity nor the logistics to carry out systematic searches, including for persons who evade national service. 5.15 With regard to the brevity of his responses at the hearings and the Swiss authorities’ allegations that they were evasive, stereotypical and not very spontaneous, and that he had cited specific dates as if the account had been duly prepared for the submission of the asylum application, the complainant reiterates that the hearings were conducted in a language with which he did not feel at ease. It seems obvious that it is easier to indicate dates than to make detailed and precise descriptions in a language that is not his mother tongue. The brevity of his answers cannot therefore be held against him. The complainant 55 56 57 58 59 12 The United Nations Commission of Inquiry noted that, in Eritrea, a large part of the population was subjected to forced labour (https://news.un.org/fr/story/2015/06/312512-un-nouveau-rapport-de-lonudenonce-les-violations-flagrantes-des-droits-de#.VliFd9IvcdV) and several human rights organizations have drawn attention to the fact that the duration of compulsory military service was indefinite: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2015, pp. 218 ff.; Amnesty International, Report 2014/15, pp. 145 ff.; and Swiss Refugee Council, Analyse pays — Érythrée, mise à jour février 2010. The complainant invokes the International Labour Organization (ILO) Forced or Compulsory Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on forced labour. M.O. v. Switzerland, para. 79. He included in the file two photos taken at a demonstration held on 11 August 2017 in Bern, where the complainant was in charge of security, and a photo of another demonstration held on 10 November 2017 on the Place des Nations. Both events had been organized by the Eritrean People’s Democratic Party. “Focus Eritrea: Update Nationaldienst und illegale Ausreise”, p. 18. GE.19-01118