CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 4.8 The complainant uses country-specific information in a very selective way. He largely relies on the reports of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which are based solely on statements by people who have left Eritrea. Moreover, these reports do not contain any information on the treatment of persons accused only of leaving the country illegally. 4.9 With regard to the allegations of torture or ill-treatment suffered in the recent past, the complainant does not claim to have been subjected to acts of torture or ill-treatment in his country. He expressly stated that he had not suffered any physical violence during his detention from 5 to 9 February 2010 but that the conditions inside the container had been appalling. At his hearing on 17 February 2016, he said that the food was bad, that it was extremely hot in the container, that there were several of them in a small space and that they did not have enough room to sleep. The Swiss authorities considered that these statements were not plausible and concluded that the complainant had never been arrested or imprisoned by the Eritrean authorities. 4.10 The State party emphasizes that the complainant’s hearing was conducted in Tigrinya with his consent. The official responsible for the hearing was at pains to stress that the complainant indicate when he did not understand a question. As noted by the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, the complainant stated during both hearings that he understood the interpreter well and confirmed at the end of the hearings that the minutes were in keeping with his statements. There is no mention of any problems of understanding on his part. In addition, the complainant expressly stated that he had never had any problems in his country of origin. 4.11 Furthermore, the complainant did not claim that he was engaged in political activities in his country of origin. Although he produced a letter attesting to his membership of the Swiss branch of Eritrean People’s Democratic Party in his appeal to the Court, he did not mention such activities in his complaint to the Committee. 4.12 With regard to the credibility of the complainant and the consistency of the reported facts, the authorities established that his account was not plausible. First, the Secretariat for Migration noted that his statements about how he left prison, which was a central part of his story, were contradictory. The Secretariat also noted that, regardless of the version held to, the complainant’s description of the conduct of the Eritrean authorities following his fiveday detention did not appear convincing. The Secretariat and the Federal Administrative Court also noted that the complainant’s statements proved to be particularly brief, evasive, stereotypical and not very spontaneous, in particular with regard to his departure from Eritrea,38 his call-up for national service, the content of the call-up papers39 and the conduct that followed. They considered this lack of elaboration all the more surprising since the complainant also cited very precise dates, as if he had learned them by heart in order to apply for asylum. 4.13 The complainant largely attributes these inconsistencies to the fact that the hearings were conducted in Tigrinya, a language he says he has an insufficient command of. Although the complainant did in fact mention at the beginning of the first, summary hearing on his personal details and subsequent hearing on the grounds for asylum that he would have liked to have been assisted by an interpreter with a command of Bilen, he nevertheless stated having fully understood the interpreter hired for the first hearing before confirming that he stood by his position and signing the minutes in question. During his hearing on the grounds for asylum, he said he understood the translation very well. He confirmed that the minutes were in keeping with his statements and that they had been read back to him in a language he understood without his indicating any particular difficulties. Nowhere in these minutes does it appear that problems of comprehension, translation or expression were raised by the complainant. The certificate from the representative of the support service 38 39 8 The State Secretariat for Migration considered that it defied all logic that the complainant was not able to better describe his alleged illegal departure from the country, i.e. a journey on foot of some 200 km from Keren to Kassala, and that it was unlikely that he would not have been stopped at any point by the authorities over such a long distance. At the first hearing, the complainant added that he could not produce the call-up papers, whereas, at the second hearing, he said he had contacted his family about them. GE.19-01118