CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 basis of all this information, the Secretariat published an update on 22 June 2016. 26 In reports published between December 2015 and August 2016, several national authorities – such as those of Sweden27 and Norway28 and the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland29 – reached similar conclusions. 4.5 In June 2016, the Swiss asylum authorities modified their practice regarding illegal departures from Eritrea, which was confirmed in particular by two landmark decisions of the Federal Administrative Court of January30 and August 2017.31 In its decision of August 2017, the Court examined in great detail the situation in Eritrea. 32 This examination shows that illegal exit from Eritrea is no longer sufficient, in itself, to justify recognition as a refugee. Likewise, the Eritrean authorities no longer seem to take a punitive approach to nationals who return to the country. 33 A major risk of punishment exists only if there are additional factors that make the asylum seeker undesirable in the eyes of the Eritrean authorities.34 The treatment of unsuccessful applicants depends on the way in which they return to the country, i.e. whether the return is voluntary or forcible. The voluntary return of rejected Eritreans ensures that they enjoy a privileged status as a member of the “diaspora”.35 These persons are in fact “rehabilitated” and exempted from national service for at least three years; they do not thus risk State persecution in connection with their departure from the country. 4.6 Nevertheless, the State party concedes that information on forcible returns carried out in recent years is sparse, as the Eritrean Government categorically rejects forcible returns from Europe and only forcible returns by land from Sudan have been carried out. There is little or no available information on the profile and past history of the returnees. In the case of M.O. v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights held that the general human rights situation in Eritrea in itself did not prevent the interested party’s return.36 The Court also held that a person whose asylum application is rejected on the basis of a lack of credibility could not be considered to have left Eritrea illegally and that being a rejected asylum seeker was not in itself sufficient to consider that he or she faced a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 37 In its August 2017 decision, the Federal Administrative Court also examined the general situation in Eritrea and concluded that the country was not experiencing any war or civil war or situation of widespread violence. 4.7 The complainant cites the risk of being conscripted into the army. However, the possibility of being called up to perform national military service upon return to Eritrea does not constitute grounds for granting refugee status. Military service does not in itself constitute certain persecution where asylum is concerned any more than it does a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention for this reason or, for that matter, on any other grounds. However, the complainant was unable to make his illegal departure from Eritrea plausible. He has thus failed to make a convincing argument that he would face treatment prohibited under article 3 upon return. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 GE.19-01118 The report points out that persons who wish to voluntarily return must pay a diaspora tax (2 per cent) to an Eritrean diplomatic mission and those who have not completed their national service must sign a confession of guilt. Lifos, Landrapport Eritrea, 15 December 2015, (https://lifos.migrationsverket.se/dokument? documentSummaryId=36406), paras. 5.4, 7.1.2 and 8.1.1. Landinfo, Eritrea: National Service, 20 May 2016 (https://landinfo.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 03/Eritrea-national-service.pdf), para. 3.2, and Eritrea: Reactions towards returned asylum seekers, 27 April 2016 (https://landinfo.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Eritrea-Reactions-towards-returnedasylum-seekers.pdf). www.gov.uk/government/publications/eritrea-country-information-and-guidance-iagci-review. Federal Administrative Court, decision D-7898/2015 of 30 January 2017. Ibid., decision D-2311/2016 of 17 August 2017. Ibid., pp. 14–16. Ibid., recital 6.3, p. 10. Ibid., decision D-7898/2015, recital 5.2, p. 42. Ibid., recital 3.9, p. 9. M.O. v. Switzerland, para. 70. Ibid., para. 79. 7