Extracted PDF page text

ERITREA ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES

Machine-extracted derivative; not a transcript or translation. Reading order, spacing and characters have not been editorially verified. PDF page numbers are file positions, not printed page labels. No OCR has been added.

Open unchanged original PDF · Download unchanged PDF

Extraction status: extracted-unverified.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNHCR ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR 
ASSESSING THE INTERNATIONAL 
PROTECTION NEEDS OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS 
FROM ERITREA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 
April 2009 

 
 
NOTE 
 
UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines are issued by the Office to assist decision-makers, including 
UNHCR staff, Governments and private practitioners, in assessing the international protection 
needs of asylum-seekers from a given country. They are authoritative legal interpretations of 
the refugee criteria in respect of specific groups on the basis of objectively assessed social, 
political, economic, security, human rights, and humanitarian conditions in the country of 
origin concerned. The pertinent protection n eeds are analyzed in detail and recommendations 
made as to how the applications in question shou ld be decided upon in line with the relevant 
principles and criteria of refugee law as per, notably, the 1951 Convention relating to the 
Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, the UNHCR Statute and relevant regional 
instruments such as the Ca rtagena Declaration, the 1969 OAU Convention and the EU 
Asylum Directives. The recommendations may al so touch upon, as relevant, complementary 
or subsidiary protection regimes. 
UNHCR issues its Eligibility Guidelines pursuant to its responsibility to promote the accurate 
interpretation and application of the above-mentioned refugee criteria as envisaged by Article 
8 of its Statute, Article 35 of the 1951 Conve ntion and Article II of its 1967 Protocol and 
based on the expertise it has developed over sever al years in eligibility and refugee status 
determination matters. It is expected that the positions and guidance contained in the 
Guidelines should be weighed heavily by the relevant decision-making authorities in reaching 
a decision on the asylum applications concerned. The Guidelines are researched strictly and 
are written based on factual evidence provided by UNHCR’s global network of field offices 
and information from independent country speci alists, researchers and other sources which is 
rigorously reviewed for reliability. The Guidelines are posted on UNHCR’s Refworld website 
at http://www.refworld.org. 
 
 2

Table of Contents 
 
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................4  
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENTS .......................................4  
III. TRENDS AND TYPES OF ERITREAN ASYLUM CLAIMS........................................8  
IV. ELIGIBILITY FOR INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ...........................................10  
1. GENERAL APPROACH............................................................................................................10  
2. INCLUSION FOR REFUGEE STATUS UNDER THE CRITERIA OF THE 1951 AND OAU 
CONVENTIONS......................................................................................................................11  
(a) Draft evaders/deserters .......................................................................................................12  
(b) Political opponents and critics............................................................................................20  
(i) Members of opposition political groups and dissidents................................................................. 20 
(ii) Journalists and other media professionals .................................................................................... 22  
(iii) Trade unionists and labour rights activists ....................................................................................... 23  
(c) Members of minority religious groups ................................................................................24  
(d) Women.................................................................................................................................27  
(e) Homosexuals .......................................................................................................................28  
3. EXCLUSION FROM INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE PROTECTION ..................................................30  
4. INTERNAL FLIGHT OR RELOCATION ALTERNATIVE ...............................................................31  
5. CESSATION OF REFUGEE STATUS ..........................................................................................32  
V. FURTHER HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................33  
1. PRISON CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................33  
2. FORCIBLE RETURN TO ERITREA............................................................................................33  
 
 
 3

I. Introduction 
For some years now, Eritrean nationals have been seeking protection as refugees in 
neighbouring countries and much further afie ld in ever increasing numbers. This 
paper provides guidelines for use by UNHCR and State adjudica tors in properly 
deciding on the claims lodged by Eritre an asylum-seekers, and in otherwise 
understanding and responding appropriately to their protection needs.1 The Guidelines 
supersede the Declaration of cessation of the refugee status of Eritrean refugees issued 
in 2002, entitled “Applicability of the "Ceased Circ umstances" Cessation Clauses to 
Eritrean Refugees Who Fled Their Country as a Result of the War of Independence 
Which Ended in June 1991 or as a Result of the Border Conflict Between Ethiopia 
and Eritrea Which Ended in June 2000”.2
The Guidelines are divided in five sections including this Introduction (Part I). Part II 
contains a brief résumé of background in formation, including an overview of the 
current political and security situation in Eritrea and the domestic legal framework, 
with a view to setting the broad context in which asylum claims are lodged by 
Eritrean nationals today. Part III provides an outline of Eritrean asylum trends and 
their causation factors, and summarizes the main types of claims dealt with by 
UNHCR in its operations. Part IV outlines the approach being advised by UNHCR as 
to how the claims should be dealt with. It elaborates the relevant  country of origin 
information and the accompanying refugee law analysis for purposes of inclusion and 
exclusion from refugee status in light of the most common types of claims, namely 
draft evasion/desertion, polit ical opinion, religion, women with particle profiles and 
sexual orientation and sets out UNHCR’s c onclusions on the inte rnational protection 
needs of Eritrean asylum-seekers. Guid ance is also provided on assessing the 
availability of an internal flight or relo cation alternative. The Guidelines conclude 
with a summary, in Part V, of further human rights considerations potentially giving 
rise to the need for complementary forms of protection. 
II. Background informat ion and developments 
The increasing number of Eritreans being forced  into exile as refugees is rooted in 
developments of a political, military, human rights and broad social and economic 
nature, which have taken place in the period since Eritrea’s independence from 
Ethiopia. Eritrea formally became a nation state in 1993 following a referendum in 
which the overwhelming majority of Eritreans voted in favour of independence from 
                                                 
1  These Guidelines are based on information availa ble up to February 2009, unless otherwise stated. 
Access to independently verifiable information on the situation in Eritrea is difficult to obtain given 
the Eritrean Government’s control over virtually ev ery aspect of life in the country, the lack of 
independent media and the curtailment of NGOs activities. The available information does 
nevertheless suggest that the political, economic, human rights and humanitarian situation continues 
to deteriorate. 
2  UNHCR, Applicability of the “Ceased Circumstances” Cessation Clauses to Eritrean Refugees 
Who Fled Their Country as a Result of the War of Independence Which Ended in June 1991 or as a 
Result of the Border Conflict Between Ethiopia and Eritrea Which Ended in June 2000, 18 
February 2002, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4165729f4.html (hereafter 
“UNHCR Cessation Declaration”). 
 4

Ethiopia.3 President Isayas Afewerki is the official head of the armed forces and the 
People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFD J) party. As a one-par ty state, Eritrea 
has been governed by the PFDJ since inde pendence. There is no effective opposition 
in Eritrea 4 able to operate openly. The only functioning opposition exists in the 
diaspora.5 Presidential and legislative elections, planned for 1997 and 2001, 
respectively, have been  postponed indefinitely. 6 The Constitution, 7 which was 
approved by referendum in 1997, remains unimplemented.8
Established by decree in 1993, the judiciar y is reportedly subject to executive 
interference.9 The judicial system consists of civil, military and executive-controlled 
“special courts”. The Office of the Attorn ey General decides which cases are to be 
tried by the special courts, including the re trial of civilian court cases. No legal 
representation or right of app eal is available before the special courts, and judges are 
military officers with little or no legal training. 10 The judicial system also reportedly 
suffers from a lack of trained personnel, inadequate funding, and poor infrastructure.11 
Members of the armed forces (including conscripts) are subject to military 
jurisdiction. Military courts, however, do  not function and punishments for military 
offences, including draft evasion and desertion, are administered by local 
commanders without judicial control.12
The Government exercises control over the media, which is entirely State-owned. 13 
The activities of human ri ghts monitors and domestic and international non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) have be en significantly curt ailed following the 
                                                 
3  BBC, Country Profile Eritrea , 17 June 2008, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world 
/africa/country_profiles/1070813.stm (hereafter “BBC Country Profile Eritrea”). 
4  See, for instance, US  Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 
Eritrea, 25 February 2009, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49a8f18faa.html 
(hereafter “US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices ”); and The 
Economist Intelligence Unit, Eritrea Country Profile 2008. 
5  Economist Intelligence Unit, Eritrea Country Profile 2008. 
6  See, for instance, BBC, Country Profile Eritrea , above footnote 3, and US Department of State, 
2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
7 Constitution of Eritrea , 23 May 1997, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
3dd8aa904.html (hereafter “Constitution”). 
8  See, for instance, Human Rights Watch, World Report 2009 – Eritrea, 14 January 2009, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49705fa350.html (hereafter “HRW, World Report 2009 ”). 
Eritrean law derives from transitional laws which incorporate pre-independ ence statutes of the 
Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, revised Ethiopian laws, customary laws, and post-independence 
enacted laws; see Dr. David Winslow, Crime and Society A Comparati ve Criminology Tour of the 
World, San Diego State University, available at http://www-
rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/africa/eritrea.html [accessed 2 December 2008]. 
9  Freedom House, The Worst of the Worst – Eritrea , 5 May 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/483f82a62.html (hereafter “Freedom House, The Worst of the 
Worst”). See also HRW, World Report 2009, above footnote 8. 
10  The special courts were established as an extr aordinary jurisdiction in 1996. Initially mandated to 
deal with embezzlement cases, th e courts have reportedly trie d politically motivated cases. See 
Amnesty International, Eritrea: ‘You have no right to ask’ – Government resists scrutiny on human 
rights, AFR 64/003/2004, 19 May 2004, p. 24, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ 
docid/4129dcf54.html (hereafter “AI, Eritrea: ‘You have no right to ask’”). 
11  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above footnote 4; see 
also Freedom House, The Worst of the Worst, above footnote 9. 
12  AI, Eritrea: ‘You have no right to ask’, above, footnote 10. 
13  See, for instance, HRW, World Report 2009, above footnote 8. 
 5

adoption of new guidelines in May 2005. 14 Having failed to receive Government 
approval under the new registration proce ss, many international NGOs were required 
to leave the country.15  
In the past decade, territorial disputes  over undemarcated borders with neighbournig 
countries have led to, inter alia , a sustained high-level military mobilization in 
Eritrea.16 In 1998, a border dispute with Ethi opia around the town of Badme erupted 
into a full-scale war between the two countries. The conflict ended following a 
ceasefire agreement in June 2000, 17 leaving both sides with tens of thousands of 
soldiers dead. Subsequently, a demilitarized Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) was 
established along the Eritrea-Ethiopia border, and UN peacekeeping troops were 
deployed under the auspices of the UN Mission in Ethiopi a and Eritrea (UNMEE) to 
monitor the ceasefire. 18 In April 2002, an indepe ndent Boundary Commission, 
established under the terms of  the Algiers Agreements, 19 issued its recommendations 
for the demarcation of the border in favour of  Eritrea’s territorial  claim. Thus far, 
Ethiopia has not implemented these recomm endations, leading to  what has been a 
continuing state of tension between the two countries. 20 Meanwhile, deteriorating 
                                                 
14  Proclamation No. 145/2005, a Proclamation to Determine the Administration of Non-governmental 
Organizations, 11 May 2005, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/493507c92.html, 
regulates the activities of non-governmental organizations. Under the Proclamation, international 
NGOs are limited to relief and rehabilitation work, and may not engage directly with the local 
communities (Articles 5-9). 
15  Freedom House, The Worst of the Worst , above footnote 9. See also HRW, World Report 2009 , 
above footnote 8. At the end of 2008, only seven international NGOs were still registered in Eritrea 
and three PFDJ-aligned domestic NGOs were allowed to operate. See US Department of State, 
2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
16  Failure to demarcate the border with Ethiopia pr ovides justification for the country to remain on a 
“war footing”.  See HRW, World Report 2009, above footnote 8. 
17  Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities Between the Government of the Federal Democratic 
Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea, UN Treaty Series Volume 2138, I-
37273, 18 August 2000, available at http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/17/8/8238.pdf. The 
parties reconfirmed their commitment to cease th e hostilities in a further agreement signed and 
effective on 12 December 2000, i.e. Agreement between the Government of the State of Eritrea and 
the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic  of Ethiopia for the resettlement of displaced 
persons, as well as rehabilitation and peacebuilding in both countries , 12 December 2000, UN 
Treaty Series, Volume 2138, I-37274, p. 94, available at http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/ 
UNTS/Volume 2138/v2138.pdf . These Agreements are generally referred to as the “Algiers 
Agreements”. 
18  UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 1320 (2000) [on deployment of troops and 
military observers within the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)] , S/RES/1320 , 15 
September 2000, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00efba18.html. See also 
International Crisis Group, Ethiopia and Eritrea: Preventing the War, 22 December 2005, available 
at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/43bd4a222.html. 
19  UN Security Council, Special report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in 
Ethiopia and Eritrea, S/2008/226, 7 April 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
47ff86ea2.html. 
20 Alexandra Hudson, Ethiopia-Eritrea Commission Ends, Border Unresolved , Reuters, 1 December 
2007, available at http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN129629.html. The final report of the 
Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission was published on 3 October 2008; see UN Security 
Council, Letter dated 2 October 2008 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the 
Security Council (United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea) , S/2008/630, 3 October 2008, 
available at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_presandsg_letters08.htm. See also UN Security 
Council, Security Council resolution 1827 (2008) [on termination of the mandate of the United 
Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)], S/RES/1827 (2008), 30 July 2008, available at 
 6

relations between Eritrea and UNMEE, includi ng the stoppage of fuel supply, denial 
of access to large sections of the TSZ and the opportunity to engage in aerial 
observation, resulted in the temporary relocation of UNMEE’s military personnel and, 
eventually, the termination of its mandate in July 2008.21
Between 10 and 12 June 2008, after severa l weeks of military  build-up, serious 
clashes were reported betw een the Djibouti Armed Forces (DAF) and the Eritrean 
Defence Forces (EDF) along the undemarcated border between the two countries. The 
incident reportedly concerned territorial claims to an area known as Doumeira, and 
resulted in over 35 deaths and dozens of wounded, according to an UN 
investigation.22
These developments have resulted in the establishment and maintenance of a large 
army and the country as a whole has been effectively on a military footing since its 
independence.  With an estimated personnel of 200,000-320,000, Eritrea has one of 
the largest armies in Africa, and the largest in sub-Saharan Africa. 23 It spends 
approximately 6.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the military, 
placing it ninth globally in per capita military expenditure. 24 An estimated 35 percent 
of its population is reported to  be in active military service. 25 The requirements for 
                                                                                                                                            
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4891d36a2.html (hereafter “UN Security Council Resolution 
1827(2008)”). 
21  UN Security Council Resolution 1827(2008), above footnote 20. 
22  Most of the border between Djibouti and Eritr ea was never officially demarcated. Eritrea claims 
that both Ras Doumeira and Doum eira Island occupied by EDF forces since March 2008 form part 
of its territory in accordance with an unratified 1935 agreement between France and Italy allocating 
Doumeira Island to the then Italian-ruled Eritrea. See UN Security Council, Letter dated 11 
September 2008 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council : 
report of the United Nations fact-finding  mission on the Djibouti-Eritrea crisis , S/2008/602, 12 
September 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49997ad80.htm. By January 
2009, Eritrea had not withdrawn its forces to the status quo ante; see UN Security Council, Security 
Council resolution 1862 (2009) [on resolving the border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea and 
the withdrawal of Eritrean forces from the area of conflict], S/RES/1862(2009), 14 January 2009, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49744ed52.html. 
23  For sources estimating the Eritrean army at 200,000 personnel, see, for instance, EuropaONline, 
Eritrea Profile, as quoted in the United Kingdom Home Office, Country of Origin Information 
Report – Eritrea, 13 September 2008, para. 10.06, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ 
docid/48f357592.html; and Jane’s Information Group, Sentinel Security Assessment - North Africa: 
Armed forces (Eritrea) , 18 March 2008, available at http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Sentinel-
Security-Assessment-North-Africa/Armed-forces-Eritrea.html. Other sources estimate the Eritrean 
army at 320,000; see Reuters, In Eritrea, youth say frustrated by long service , 18 July 2008, 
available at http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL14124755. In comparison, in 2008, 
the Ethiopian armed forces were estimated at 150,000; see Jane’s Information Group, Sentinel 
Security Assessment - North Africa: Armed forces (Ethiopia) , 28 November 2008, available at 
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Sentinel-Security-Assessment-North-Africa/Armed-forces-
Ethiopia.html. 
24 US Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook: Eritrea , last updated 5 March 2009, 
available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/er.html#Military. In 
comparison, Ethiopia’s estimated military spending represented 3 percent of the GDP; see US 
Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook: Ethiopia , last updated 5 March 2009, available 
at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html#Military. 
25  Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Eritrea: Military service, including age of recruitment, 
length of service, grounds for exemption, penaltie s for desertion from and  evasion of military 
service and availability of alternative service (2005 – 2006) , ERI102026.E, 28 February 2007, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/469cd6b83.html (hereafter “IRB, Eritrea: 
Military service”). 
 7

compulsory national service are enforced stri ctly as elaborated further below in these 
Guidelines, leading to one of the most important reasons for the new phase of flight 
from the country by Eritreans. 
For 2008, the estimated GDP per capita stands at less than USD 307. 26 The country 
has practically no exports, while the cost of  imports account for roughly 40 percent of 
the GDP. The cost of living, particularly in  urban areas, is steadily increasing beyond 
the reach of most Eritreans. 27 There is a growing scarcity of basic staples such as 
bread, sugar and fuel, and, despite Govern ment programmes designed to ensure food 
security, two thirds of the popul ation are still reliant on food aid. 28 Social services in 
Eritrea remain basic and poverty is repo rtedly widespread. In 2006, electricity 
blackouts in the country, including in th e capital, Asmara, were common due to 
energy shortages.29
III. Trends and types of Eritrean asylum claims 
Thousands of Eritreans were externally displaced as a result of the war for 
independence from Ethiopia which raged between 1961 and 1991. The greater part of 
those refugees fled to and was hosted for years in Suda n until Eritrea’s independence 
in 1993. While many of them returned home th ereafter, a significan t number is still 
living in eastern Sudan.30  
The contemporary phase of flight into exil e of Eritrean nationals with which these 
Guidelines are concerned is much broader. Since the 2000 Algiers Agreements, which 
marked the end of hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia and prompted the 
repatriation of thousands of refugees, ongoing tensions over the border demarcation 
between the two countries and recent border clashes with Djibouti have resulted in an 
increased military mobilization in Eritrea. 31 This mobilization, coupled with a 
deterioration of the human ri ghts and humanitarian situatio n, has led to new flows of 
refugees. 
Most Eritrean asylum-seekers flee to ne ighbouring Djibouti, Et hiopia and Sudan. In 
2008 alone, over 8,000 Eritreans so ught asylum in Ethiopia. 32 As of May 2008, there 
were approximately 18,000 Eritrean asylum-seek ers and refugees in Shimelba Camp, 
                                                 
26  In 2006, the GDP per capita was less than USD 267. See International Monetary Fund, World 
Economic Outlook Database , April 2008, available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/ 
2008/01/weodata/index.aspx.  
27  Awate.com, Eritrea: sightings, hearings and movements , 29 April 2008, available at 
http://www.awate.com/portal/content/view/4826/3/. 
28  HRW, World Report 2009 , above footnote 8. 
29  Bertelsman Transitional Index 2008, Eritrea Country Report , 2008, available at 
http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/75.0.html?L=0. 
30  Precise numbers are currently not available due  to an ongoing verification exercise, which is 
targeting over 168,000 Eritreans formerly registered with UNHCR. See UNHCR, UNHCR Global 
Appeal 2008-2009 – Sudan, 1 December 2007, available at http://www.unhcr.org/home/PUBL/ 
474ac8cb0.pdf. Some 147,000 asylum-seekers and refugees, mostly Eritrean, have found refuge in 
eastern Sudan, among whom almost 96,000 live in 12 camps in Central, Gedaref, Sinar and Kassala 
States. See UNHCR, Protracted Refugee Situations. High Commissioner’s Initiative , December 
2008, p. 14, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/496f041d2.html. 
31  President Afwerki reportedly uses the border dema rcation dispute with Ethiopia as a justification to 
maintain Eritrea on a “war footing”. See, for instance, HRW, World Report 2009, above footnote 8. 
32  Figures provided by UNHCR Office in Ethiopia. 
 8

and a second refugee camp, in Mayani, had been established to cater for arrivals 
averaging 500 persons per month.33
In 2008, some 13,000 new asylum-seekers, a la rge number of whom were Eritrean, 
had been registered by UNHCR in Sudan by the end of October. 34 Most of the new 
arrivals are young (aged 17-25 ye ars) and of urban background. The majority of them 
are men, but there are also women of the same age group. Virtually all have claimed 
to be fleeing Eritrea because of military service. Many are totally destitute. 
Many Eritrean asylum-seekers move onward to  other parts of the world, notably the 
Middle East and Europe.  In  the Middle East, they ar e frequently subjected to 
detention for long periods of time. For instan ce a group has allegedly been held in the 
Gizan Detention Center, in Saudi Arabia, for over seven years. 35 Reports also indicate 
that large numbers have been detain ed at various site s throughout Egypt, 36 and many 
have been sentenced by military tribunals  for illegally entering the country or 
attempting to cross illegally into Israel. 37 Eritrean asylum-seekers in North Africa are 
also at risk of refoulement.38
In 2008, the number of Eritreans seeking asyl um in industrialized countries increased 
to 12,311 applications from 9,160 in 2007, representing a 34 percent increase.39 While 
the majority is fleeing the country’s military service, claims are also based on other or 
cumulative grounds. In 2007, Eritrea was the wo rld’s third largest country of origin 
for individual asylum-seekers/refugees after Iraq and Somalia.40
According to UNHCR’s analysis of the cl aims lodged by Eritreans and information 
provided by the States concerned, three main trends in  the claims can be identified. 
First, a significant number of Eritrean nationals are fleeing military conscription. 
Secondly, there are Eritreans fleeing the country on account of religious persecution. 
The third typology in the asylum claims can be grouped together under the broad 
                                                 
33  Refugees International, Ethiopia-Eritrea: Stalemate takes toll on Eritreans and Ethiopians of 
Eritrean origin, 30 May 2008, available at http://www.refugeesinternational.org/sites/default/files/ 
Ethiopia_stateless0530.pdf. 
34  See UNHCR, Protracted Refugee Situations. High Commissioner’s Initiative, December 2008, p. 
14, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/496f041d2.html. 
35  Journal Chretien, Eritreans in Saudi Detention Center Begin Hunger Strike to Call for Resettlement, 
28 August 2008, available at http://journalchretien.net/breve14140.html. 
36  In June 2008, UNHCR had collected the names of some 1,400 Eritreans detained in various 
locations in Egypt. See UNHCR, UNHCR interviews 179 Eritrean asylum seekers detained in 
Egypt, 2 July 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/news/NEWS/486b9e9f4.html. See also 
AFROL News, Eritreans forcibly returned “to torture” , 12 June 2008, available at 
http://www.afrol.com/articles/29352, according to which, in June  2008, over 150 Eritreans were 
detained in police stations near Aswan city, and around 700, near the Red Sea cities of Hurghada 
and Marsa Alam. 
37  According to Human Rights Watch, women are generally sentenced to about six months’ and men, 
to one year’s imprisonment for such offences. See Human Rights Watch , Sinai Perils: Risks to 
Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Egypt and Israel , 12 November 2008, p. 67, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/491aebbd2.html. See also Amnesty International, Eritrean 
asylum-seekers face deportation from Egypt , 19 December 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49509c20c.html. 
38  For more information on refoulement, please refer to Section V.2. Forcible return to Eritrea. 
39  According to UNHCR statistics. For 2008, the to p countries of asylum for Eritrean claimants were 
Switzerland, Italy and the United Kingdom.. 
40 UNHCR, UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2007 , December 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4981b19d2.html. 
 9

category of human rights violations owing to, inter alia , political opinion, freedom of 
speech/press and association.  In addition, potential claims by wo men with specific 
profiles and homosexuals are also cons idered. These are the main groupings 
according to which the analysis and guidance in these Guidelines is organized. 
IV. Eligibility for international protection 
1. General approach 
UNHCR considers that most Er itreans fleeing their country should be considered as 
refugees according to the criteria cont ained in the 1951 Convention relating to the 
Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) 41 and its 1967 Protocol, 42 and/or the 1969 
Convention governing the Specific Aspect s of Refugee Problems in Africa (OAU 
Convention),43 particularly on the grounds of “po litical opinion” (both real and 
imputed) and “religion”. In this respect, the groups considered to have a presumption 
of eligibility include, but are not limite d to, draft evaders/deserters, political 
opponents or dissidents (real or  perceived), journalists a nd other media professionals, 
trade unionists and labour rights activists, members of  religious minorities, women 
with particular profiles and homosexuals. In  countries in which asylum claims are 
determined on an individual basis, they shoul d be so duly consider ed in light of the 
1951/OAU Conventions’ criteria. All claims by Eritrean asylum-seekers should be 
considered on the basis of th eir individual merits accord ing to fair and efficient 
refugee status determination procedures. In countries where Eritrean asylum-seekers 
have arrived in very large numbers, repres ent a discernible and similar pattern in the 
nature of their claims, and where refug ee status determination exceeds the local 
capabilities, UNHCR encourages the adoption of a prima facie approach in processing 
claims. 
Given the situation in Eritrea, some of the claims lodged by Eritrean asylum-seekers 
may give rise to possible exclusion from refugee status as explaine d in Part IV(3) of 
these Guidelines. Individuals already recognized as refugees, whether on a prima 
facie basis or following individua l status determination, should retain this status. 
UNHCR also advises against return of Eritr ean asylum-seekers to countries they may 
have transited or in which they may have b een granted status, but from which there is 
a risk of refoulement or deportation. Should an individual demonstrate other needs for 
which a complementary form of protecti on would be appropriate, the needs and 
appropriate response should be assessed accordingly. In this regard, States’ 
obligations under international human rights law remain unaffected. 
                                                 
41  UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees , 28 July 1951, UN Treaty 
Series, Vol. 189, p. 137, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3be01b964.html. 
42  UN General Assembly, Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees , 30 January 1967, UN Treaty 
Series, Vol. 606, p. 267, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3ae4.html. 
43  Organization of African Unity , Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in 
Africa, 10 September 1969, 1001 U.N.T.S. 45, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
3ae6b36018.html. 
 10

2. Inclusion for refugee status und er the criteria of the 1951 and OAU 
Conventions 
Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention a nd Article I(1) of the OAU Convention 
provide that the term “refugee” should apply to any person who  
“owing to well-founded fear of being pers ecuted for reasons of race, religion, 
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is 
outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is 
unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having 
a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as 
a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return 
to it.” 
The above definition contains both a subjecti ve and an objective element. The former 
refers to an individual’s fear of harm in the event of re turn to Eritrea. The objective 
element refers to the appli cant’s fear being well-founded, which means that there is a 
reasonable likelihood that the harm feared or  some other form of harm would occur 
upon return.44 The well-founded fear of persecution mu st relate to one or more of the 
1951 Convention or, where applicable, OAU Convention grounds, i.e. “race”, 
“religion”, “nationality”, “political opinion” or “members hip of a particular social 
group”. The Convention ground concerned must  be a relevant contributing factor, 
though it need not be the sole, or dominant, cause.45
Whether a fear is well-founded needs to be de termined in the cont ext of the situation 
in Eritrea, taking into account the personal profile, experiences and activities of the 
applicant, which would put him or her at risk. 46 Even where an individual may not 
have personally experienced actual harm or th reats or risks of harm, events in his or 
her area of residence or re lating to others with simila r profiles may nonetheless give 
rise to a well-founded fear of  persecution. The analysis of an asylum application 
should, therefore, include a full pictur e of the asylum-seeker’s background and 
personal circumstances, and the prevailing situ ation in his or her area of origin or 
previous residence in Eritrea. 
There is no definition of the term “persecu tion”. It may, however, be inferred that a 
threat to life or freedom, other serious harm  or serious violations of human rights, on 
account of race, religion, nationality, political  opinion or membership of a particular 
social group, would constitute persecution. 47 Moreover, persecution is not limited to 
acts which cause physical harm. Severe discrimination could also amount to 
persecution, in particular where livelihood is threatened . Measures which restrict 
                                                 
44  UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 
Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees , 1 January 1992, paras. 37-41, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3314.html (hereafter “UNHCR 
Handbook”). 
45  See, for instance, UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 1: Gender-Related 
Persecution Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol 
Relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/02/01, 7 May 2002, para. 20, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3d36f1c64.html (hereafter “UNHCR, Guidelines on 
International Protection No. 1: Gender-Related Persecution”). 
46  UNHCR Handbook, above footnote 44, para. 45. 
47  See Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention, above footnote 41, and Article II(3) of the OAU 
Convention, above footnote 43. 
 11

one’s ability to earn a living so that surv ival is threatened would thus amount to 
persecution. Discriminatory measures that are not of a serious character by themselves 
may amount to persecution on a cumulative basis.48
Bearing in mind these consider ations, the groups of Eritre ans considered particularly 
at risk in view of the milita ry, political and human rights situation in the country, and 
from which most of those who have fled the country and applied for asylum have 
originated, are examined below. 
(a) Draft evaders/deserters 
National service49 is mandatory for every Eritrean, male or female, between the ages 
of 18 and 50. 50 “Active” national service consists of six months of training in the 
National Service Training Center and 12 months of active military service and 
development tasks in the military forces for a total of l8 months, 51 save in situations 
of mobilization or war when the ac tive national service can be extended. 52 Persons 
suffering from disabilities may be exempted from national service, 53 while students 
and those medically unfit may be temporarily exempted. 54 Following the completion 
of 18 months of active nationa l service, citizens are subject to compulsory service in 
the reserve army until the age of 50, 55 and as such are liable to be called for national 
mobilization, (further) military training or “defence in artificial or natural disasters”.56 
For female conscripts, some sources assert that, in practice, the upper limit for 
conscription has been reduced to 27 years. 57 Although the Proclamation on National 
Service makes no reference to gender-based  exemptions, some official Eritrean 
Government sources indicate that women in  the military who marry are discharged. 58 
In addition, Muslim women, nursing mother s and women with children are also 
reportedly exempted.59
                                                 
48  UNHCR Handbook, above footnote 44, paras. 54-55. 
49  Pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Proclamation on National Service No. 82/1995 , 23 October 1995, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dd8d3af4.html (hereafter “ Proclamation on 
National Service”), “national service” encompasses “active national service” and “reserve military 
service” (i.e. service that a person who has undertaken active service will be called upon to perform 
in times of mobilization or other circumstances). For the purposes of these Guidelines, the terms 
“national service” and “military service” will be used interchangeably. 
50  Articles 6 and 9 of the Proclamation on National Service , above footnote 49. “Active national 
service” is mandatory for all Eritreans between the ages of 18 and 40 (Article 8). 
51  Article 8 of the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49.  
52  Articles 18 and 21 of the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49. 
53  Article 15 of the Proclamation on National Service , above footnote 49. Those who have been 
declared unfit to undertake military training must perform 18 months of national service in 
Government administrative functions (Article 13(1)). 
54  Article 14 of the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49. 
55  Article 23 of the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49. 
56  Article 28 of the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49. 
57  IRB, Eritrea: Military service , above footnote 25. See also HRW, World Report 2009 , above 
footnote 8. According to the US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices, above footnote 4, 47 constitutes the upper age limit for women. 
58  In such cases, women must provide their marri age certificate in order to  obtain their discharge 
documents. See Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Eritrea: Whether women serving in the 
military are discharged when they marry; if so, evidence required to prove marriage, ERI102729.E, 
28 January 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47d6544d23.html. 
59  UK Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report – Eritrea , 13 September 2008, paras. 
11.32 and ff.,  available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48f357592.html (hereafter “UK 
 12

Conscription is reportedly enfo rced through routine “round-ups” (giffa ) by police or 
the EDF, work-place and house searches, str eet abductions and detention of suspected 
evaders, as well as identity document check s, including at military road blocks on 
major roads. 60 Although the minimum age for military conscription is 18, forced 
underage recruitment, detention and ill-treatment of children has been reported. 61 A 
militarization of education is also reported. 62 The University of Asmara, prior to its 
closure in September 2006, 63 had reportedly denied en rollment to prospective 
students, who were instead required to attend vocational programmes.64 Since 2003, a 
mandatory final year (12th grade) has been added to the secondary school curriculum, 
which students must attend at Sawa milita ry training centre under military authority 
and including military-type training. 65 Students approaching conscription age have 
reportedly fled the country in the thousands or have gone into hiding. 66 Furthermore, 
Eritreans are reportedly subjected to repe ated periods of service far exceeding the 
statutory limit of 18 months.67
                                                                                                                                            
Home Office, 2008 COI Report”). There are, however, reports of round-ups for military service of 
women, including mothers. Based on the evidence available, th e UK Asylum and Immigration 
Tribunal found in WA (Draft Related Risks Updated – Muslim Women) Eritrea CG [2006] UKIAT 
00079, 30 October 2006, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/467f97062.html, that 
Muslim women were not per se  exempt from military service, and thus could still be at risk of 
punishment for draft evasion. 
60  See AI, Eritrea: ‘You have no right to ask’, above footnote 10, p. 24. Those resisting conscription 
are reportedly shot. In an official communication on 27 January 2005, the Government indicated 
that four persons had been fatally wounded in one such round-up; see UN Commission on Human 
Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro 
Despouy, Addendum, E/CN.4/2006/52/Add.1, 27 March 2006, paras. 82-85, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49997ae020.html. 
61  UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties 
under article 44 of the Convention: Convention on the Rights of the Child: concluding 
observations: Eritrea, CRC/C/ERI/CO/3, 23 June 2008, paras. 40 and 70, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4885cfaad.html (hereafter “UN CRC, Convention on the 
Rights of the Child: concluding observations: Eritrea”); Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 
Child Soldiers Global Report 2008 – Eritrea, 20 May 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/486cb0fdc.html. In Eritrea birth registration is used to identify 
children for forced conscription. S ee UNICEF, Innocenti Research Group,  Birth Registration and 
Armed Conflict , 2007, p. 10, available at http://www.unicef.at/fileadmin/medien/pdf/birth 
_registration_and_armed_conflict.pdf. In February 2006, a reported round-up in the Anseba region 
included a sweep of all high schools in the region. All students in grades 10 and 11, who were 17 
years or older, were put on buses and sent to a remote military location in Wia, in the north of the 
country. See IRB, Eritrea: Military service, above footnote 25.  
62  BBC, Eritrea rapped for ‘military’ schooling , 11 January 2004, available at 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3386965.stm. The Government requires final year (11th grade) 
secondary students and all university students to do up to 2-3 months summer vacation work service 
on development projects. 
63  Awate.com , Lamenting my university: the de-institutionalization of the University of Asmara in 
commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the University , 20 January 2008, available at  
http://www.awate.com/portal/content/view/4739/5/ . 
64  Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
65  See AI, Eritrea: ‘You have no right to ask’, above footnote 10; and Freedom House, Freedom in the 
World 2008 – Eritrea, 2 July 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
487ca208a5.html. 
66  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
67  The Government reportedly justifies its open-ended draft on the basis of the undemarcated border 
with Ethiopia. See HRW, World Report 2009 , above footnote 8. See also MA (Draft Evaders – 
Illegal Departures – Risk) Eritrea CG [2007] UKAIT 00059, 26 June 2007 (UK Asylum and 
Immigration Tribunal), pa ra. 307, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
 13

The Proclamation on National Service sets out the penalties for military violations, 
including for attempting to avoid national service by deceit or self-inflicted 
mutilation, escape from, and flight from active national service or registration. 68 The 
standard sanction is a fine of 3,000 Bir (now ca. 4,600 Nakfa) 69 and/or two years’ 
imprisonment. For those who fled abroad specifically to avoid military service and 
who did not return before the age of 40, the punishment increases to five years’ 
imprisonment or until the pe rson reaches the age of 50. Ri ghts to own land, to obtain 
an exit visa, to work and other “privileges” can also be suspended.70
In addition to the penalties imposed under the Proclamation on National Service, the 
penalties stipulated in the Eritr ean Transitional Penal Code (ETPC) 71 also cover 
military violations, including failure to en list, or re-enlist, seeking fraudulent 
exemptions, desertion, absence without leave,  refusal to perform military service and 
infliction of unfitness (injur y to avoid service). The puni shment ranges from six 
months’ to 10 years’ imprisonment depe nding on the gravity of the act. During 
emergencies or mobilizations, the penalties are significantly more severe. Desertion is 
the most severely sanctioned and entails im prisonment for up to five years, but in 
times of mobilization or emergency this can increase from five  years to life, or, in the 
gravest cases, death, for desertion from a unit,  post or military duties or for failure to 
return to them after an au thorized period of absence. 72 Since military courts are not 
operative, punishment for military offences is carried out extrajudicially, and has been 
widely reported to include “shoot to kill” orders,73 detention for long periods, torture 
and forced labour.74 Draft evaders/deserters are reporte d to be frequently subjected to 
torture,75 while conscientious objectors can fa ce extreme physical  punishment as a 
                                                                                                                                            
46822c3f2.html (hereafter “MA (Draft Evaders – Illegal Departures – Risk) ”); and US Department 
of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
68  Article 37 of the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49. 
69  Articles 6 and 9 of the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49. 
70  Articles 6 and 9 of the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49. 
71  Eritrea Transition Penal Code (Proclamation No. 158 of 1957) , 23 July 1957, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49216a0a2.html (hereafter “ETPC”). 
72  Articles 296 to 302 of the ETPC, above footnote 71. 
73  Reports claim that the Governme nt authorized the use of lethal force against anyone resisting or 
attempting to flee during military searches for deserters and draft. See, for instance, HRW, World 
Report 2009, above footnote 8; US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices, above footnote 4; and UNHCR, Registration of refugees begins in eastern Sudan , 4 
March 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/news/NEWS/47cd36042.html. There were also 
reports of “shoot to kill” orders for illegal border-crossers, including those fleeing national service; 
see Reuters, Ethiopia says Eritrea forces shot at deserters , 25 January 2008, available at 
http://www.reuters.com/article/africaCrisis/idUSL25768510. See also Christian Solidarity 
Worldwide, Eritrea: Repression of religious freedom, torture and arbitrary detention , 1 July 2007, 
available at http://www.online2.church123.com/attach.asp?clientURN=christiansolidarity 
worldwide&attachFileName=001ce79a6a106404529f57fd49f4de4e.attach&attachOriginalFileNam
e=CSW_briefing_Eritrea_June_2007.pdf, and Suwera Centre for Human Rights, The State of 
Human Rights in Eritrea, 2006, April 2007.  
74  Draft evaders and deserters, who have not attempted to leave the country, have been used as 
labourers on Government development projects as punishment. See, for example, US Department of 
State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above footnote 4; and WRITENET, 
Eritrea: Challenges and Crisis of a New State , 1 October 2006, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4538821e4.html. This was also confirmed by information 
obtained during UNHCR-conducted interviews with Eritrean deserters in 2008. 
75  Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch World Report 2007 – Eritrea , 11 January 2007, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45aca29eb.html. See also AI, Eritrea: ‘You have 
no right to ask’, above footnote 10. Deserters and draf t evaders are report edly subjected to, inter 
 14

means of forcing them to perform military service. 76 Furthermore, extrajudicial 
executions are allegedly ordered by local commanders and carried  out in front of 
military units for what might be serious military offences. 77 In practice, the 
punishment for desertion or evasion is thus  severe and disproportionate such as to 
constitute persecution.78
Although fear of prosecution and punishment  on the grounds of desertion or draft 
evasion does not in itself constitute a well-founded fear of persecution, a deserter/draft 
evader may be considered a refugee “if it ca n be shown that he [or she] would suffer 
disproportionately severe punishment for th e military offence on account of his [or 
her] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular soci al group or political 
opinion. The same would apply if it can be shown that he [or she] has a well-founded 
fear of persecution on [those] grounds  […] and beyond the punishment for 
desertion.”79
                                                                                                                                            
alia, prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures, binding of hands, elbows and feet for extended 
periods of time, suspension from trees with hands tied behind back (i.e. the “almaz” or diamond 
technique), tying of hands to the feet (i.e. the “helicopter” technique). See also BBC News, Eritrean 
Christians tell of torture , 27 September 2007, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/ 
7015033.stm. 
76  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4.  
77  AI, Eritrea: ‘You have no right to ask’, above footnote 10, pp. 24 and 31. 
78  UNHCR Handbook, above footnote 44, paras. 170-173. Many jurisdictions have granted asylum to 
Eritrean draft evaders and deserters on this basis. See, for example, Ukashu Nuru, aka Ukasha Nuru 
v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General , 03-71391; A77-954-387, 21 April 2005 (United States 
Court of Appeals for the Ni nth Circuit), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
428482de4.html, where the Court held, inter alia, that “torture is per se disproportionately harsh; it 
is inherently and impermissibly severe; and it is a fortiori conduct that reaches the level of 
persecution”; Refugee Appeal No. 75668, 25 May 2006 (Refugee Stat us Appeals Authority New 
Zealand), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48abd57cd.html (hereafter “ Refugee 
Appeal No. 75668 ”); L.H. Erytrea , JICRA 2006/3, 20 December 2005 (Commission suisse de 
recours en matière d’asile), available at http://www.ark-cra.ch/emark/2006/03.htm; IN (Draft 
Evaders – Evidence of Risk) Eritrea CG [2005] UKIAT 00106, 24 May 2005 (UK Immigration 
Appeal Tribunal), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/46836aa5d.html (hereafter “IN 
(Draft Evaders – Evidence of Risk) ”). The latter was supplemented and amended by MA (Draft 
Evaders – Illegal Departures – Risk), above footnote 67. In MA, the Tribunal held that:  
“[a] person who is reasonably likely to have left Eritrea illegally will in general be at real risk 
on return if he or she is of draft age, even if the evidence shows that he or she has completed 
Active National Service […]. By leaving illegally while still subject to National Service, 
(which liability in general continues until the person ceases to be of draft age), that person is 
reasonably likely to be regarded by the authorities of Eritrea as a deserter and subjected to 
punishment which is persecutory and amounts to serious harm and ill-treatment.  […] Illegal 
exit continues to be a key factor in assessing risk on return. A person who fails to show that he 
or she left Eritrea illegally will not in general be at real risk, even if of draft age and whether 
or not the authorities are aware that he or sh e has unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the 
United Kingdom.”  
 See also Said v. The Netherlands, Application No. 2345/02, 5 July 2005 (European Court of Human 
Rights), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/42ce6edf4.html, where the Court found a 
violation of Article 3 of the European Convention for Human Rights. 
79  UNHCR Handbook, above footnote 44, para. 169. Punishment for refusing to perform military 
service may constitute persecution if, inter alia, owing to a 1951 Convention (or OAU Convention) 
reason: the punishment is applied in a discriminatory manner; the punishment is aggravated; or the 
person is denied due process of law. See, for instance, UNHCR, Basis of Claims and Background 
Information on Asylum-Seekers and Refuge es from the Republic of Belarus , 8 October 2004, para. 
11, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4166b71a4.html. 
 15

Even where a claim is not based on actual political opinion, or no t perceived by the 
draft evader or deserter as being an expres sion of political opinion, refusal to perform 
military service may nevertheless amount to imputed political opinion. “Military 
service and objection thereto, seen from the poi nt of view of the State, are also issues 
which go to the heart of the body politic. Refusal to bear arms, however motivated, 
reflects an essentially political opinion regarding the permissible limits of State 
authority; it is a political act.”80 Military service has become politicized in Eritrea and 
actual or perceived evasion or desertion from military service is regarded by the 
Eritrean authorities as an expression of political opposition to the regime.81 Persons 
who evade or desert military service are regarded as di sloyal and treasonous towards 
the Government,82 and are punished for their perceive d disloyalty. Hence, persons of, 
or approaching, military service age, who are medically fit, are at risk of persecution 
                                                 
80  Guy S. Goodman-Gill and Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law , Oxford, 3rd edition, 
2007, p. 111. See also Refugee Appeal No. 75378 , 19 October 2005 (New Zealand Refugee Status 
Appeals Authority), para. 116, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/477cfbc20.html 
(hereafter “Guy S. Goodman-Gill and Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law”):  
“Under any circumstance, an objection by an individual to a law requiring compulsory 
military service is inherently an expression of an opinion as to the boundaries of state power 
in relation to the individual; it is inherently political.”;  
and Refugee Appeal No. 76183 , 13 May 2008 (New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority), 
paras. 50-51, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4835286d2.html. See also 
Erduran v. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs  [2002] FCA 814, 27 June 2002 
(Federal Court of Australia), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/814.html; and Zolfagharkhani v. Canada (Minister of 
Employment and Immigration)  [1993] 3 F.C. 540, 15 June 1993 (Federal Court of Canada), 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48abd5710.html. 
81  See IN (Draft evaders – evidence of risk) , above footnote 78, para. 44. IN  was affirmed, to this 
extent, by subsequent country guidance, including MA (Draft Evaders – Illegal Departures – Risk) , 
above footnote 67. In MA, the Tribunal held that:  
“that a person of military service age or who is approaching military service age who leaves 
Eritrea illegally before undertaking or completing Active National Service (as defined in 
Article 8 of the 1995 Proclamation) […], is reasonably likely to be regarded by the Eritrean 
authorities as a deserter and punished accordingly. The evidence of a “shoot to kill” policy in 
respect of deserters, the imprisoning of parents and the process known as “the giffa”, together 
with the more general objective evidence regard ing the oppressive nature of the Eritrean 
regime, confirms that any such punishment is likely to be both extra-judicial and of such a 
severity as to amount to persecution, serious  harm and ill-tr eatment. What also emerges 
plainly from the evidence, is that a person of draft age, who has left illegally and who is not 
medically unfit will be similarly regarded even if he has completed Active National Service 
and has been “demobilised” therefrom because, in the absence of special factors, he or she is 
still regarded as being subject to National Service. The country guidance in IN […] is 
therefore modified so as to include this category of persons amongst those who are in general 
at real risk.” (paras 445-446).  
See also GM (Eritrea); YT (Eritrea); MY (Eritrea ) v. Secretary of State for the Home 
Department [2008] EWCA Civ 833. United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales), 17 
July 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4880598b2.html, and Refugee Appeal 
No. 75668, above footnote 78. The politicization of the military service is evidenced, inter alia, by 
the armed forces being under the personal control of  the President, the speci al courts being staffed 
with military officers, and the use of military service as a repressive measure against real or 
perceived opponents of the Government. See, for instance, HRW, World Report 2009 , above 
footnote 8. 
82  In 2008, Presiden t Afewerki claimed that international re ports of increasing number of Eritrean 
refugees were deliberate distortions and that defec tions were caused by an “orchestrated, organized 
operation financed by the CIA.” See HRW, World Report 2009 , above footnote 8; see also Jack 
Kimball and Andrew Cawthorne, Eritrean leader blames CIA plot for youth exodus , Reuters, 13 
May 2008, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL13745161. 
 16

on return to Eritrea as actual or perceive d draft evaders or deserters on the ground of 
imputed political opinion. 
There are also cases where the performan ce of military service would require the 
individual’s participation in military action contrary to his or her genuine political, 
religious or moral convictions, or to valid reasons of conscience. Refusal to perform 
military service on the ground of religious convictions may give rise to a well-
founded fear of persecution, where such convictions are proved genuine and they are 
not taken into account by the authorities in  requiring the applicant to perform military 
service. Moreover, conscientious objection itself may be regarded as a form of 
political opinion, 83 and conscientious objectors, or some particular class of them, 
could constitute a pa rticular social group. 84 While a State has a justifiable interest in 
ensuring national security, the measures taken to that end must be “reasonably 
necessary in a democratic society”. 85 Whether an objection to performing military 
service for reasons of conscience can give rise to a valid claim to refugee status 
should also be considered in light of developm ents in this field, including the fact that 
an increasing number of States have intr oduced alternatives to compulsory military 
                                                 
83  Not taking a position because of religious beliefs, may also amount to imputed political opinion, for 
example in situations of civ il conflict. See, for instance, Jose Roberto Canas-Segovia, Oscar Iban 
Canas-Segovia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service , 902 F.2d 717, 24 April 1990 (United 
States Court of Appeals for th e Ninth Circuit), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
3ffd6f7e4.html:  
“The [appellants’] refusal to do military service because of their religious beliefs also 
necessarily places them in a po sition of political neutrality in the Salvadoran civil conflict. 
[…] An expression of political neutrality is no less an expression of political opinion than is 
the decision to affiliate with an organized political faction.”  
Later confirmed on this issue in Jose Roberto Canas-Segovia, Oscar Iban Canas-Segovia v. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service , 970 F.2d 599, 10 July 1992 (United States Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/40016ecc4.html. 
84  The Federal Court of Australia adopted the same view in SZAOG v. Minister for Immigration & 
Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs  [2004] FCAFC 316, 29 November 2004, available at 
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2004/316.html:  
“While it may be possible for conscientious objection itself to be regarded as a form of 
political opinion, the question would still need to be asked whether the conscientious objection 
to military service had a political or religious basis or whether conscientious objectors, or 
some particular class of them, could constitute a particular social group. If a person would be 
punished for refusing to undergo military service by reason of conscientious objection 
stemming from political opinion or religious view, or the conscientious objection is itself 
political opinion, it may be possible to find that the person is liable to be persecuted for a 
Convention reason.”  
See also Erduran v. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs  [2002] FCA 814, 27 June 
2002 (Federal Court of Australia), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/814.html. 
85  Guy S. Goodman-Gill and Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law , above footnote 80, p. 
111. The European Court of Human Rights interprets this phrase as meaning “justified by a 
pressing social need and, in pa rticular, proportionate to the le gitimate aim pursued”. See, for 
instance, Beldjoudi v. France , 12083/86, 26 February 1992, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4029f4bc4.html. In Yeo-Bum Yoon and Myung-Jin Choi v. 
Republic of Korea , CCPR/C/88/D/1321-1322/2004, 23 January 2007, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48abd57dd.html (hereafter “Yeo-Bum Yoon”), the UN Human 
Rights Committee held that restrictions on one’s right to manifest religious beliefs “must be 
prescribed by law and be necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the 
fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. 
 17

service.86 In the absence of substitute or alterna tive military service, as is the case in 
Eritrea, the likelihood of pr osecution and/or the severity of punishment must be 
examined in order to determine whether they amount to persecution. 87 To this effect, 
disproportionate, excessive or arbitrary punishment may well amount to 
persecution.88
While the unimplemented Eritrean C onstitution guarantees freedom of thought, 
conscience and belief, 89 conscientious objection is not recognized under Eritrean 
law.90 In addition, no alternative or substitute  service is offered to conscientious 
objectors, including members of the Jehova h’s Witness faith affiliation, who make 
themselves available for national service on condition that they are not required to 
carry arms.91 Although members of ot her religious groups, including Muslims – one 
of the four State-sanctioned religions –, have been reportedly imprisoned for failure to 
undertake military service, Jehovah’s Witnesses conti nue to be subjected to harsher 
treatment, such as dismissal from civil service; revocation of  business licenses; 
eviction from Government housin g; and denial of identity cards, passports and exit 
visas.92 Conscientious objectors, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses, may thus be at risk 
of persecution, on the ground of their re ligion, imputed political opinion or 
membership of a particular social group, for draft evasion or desertion. 
Moreover, a pattern of sexual violence agains t female conscripts exists within the 
military. Some female conscripts are reportedly subjected to sexual harassment and 
violence, including rape.93 There have been reports of fe male conscripts coerced into 
having sex with commanders, including thro ugh threats of hea vy military duties, 
harsh postings, and denial of home leave. Re fusal to submit to sexual exploitation and 
                                                 
86  UNHCR Handbook, above footnote 44, paras. 170-173. See also Yeo-Bum Yoon, above footnote 85, 
where the UN Human Rights Committee held that in the absence of an alternative to compulsory 
military service, under pain of criminal prosecution and imprisonment, the Republic of Korea 
breached the applicants’ rights under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). 
87  UNHCR Handbook, above footnote 44, para. 169. See also Guy S. Goodman-Gill and Jane 
McAdam, The Refugee in International Law, above footnote 80, p. 112. 
88  In a recent case, the Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia held that a Jehovah’s Witness who 
objected to military service in Lebanon on account of his religious beliefs and who, as a result, had 
been detained and ill-treated, had suffered seri ous harm amounting to persecution on the ground of 
his religion. See RRT Case No. 071370063  [2007] RRTA 118, 27 June 2007, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47f396722.html. See also RRT Case No. 071843748  [2008] 
RRTA 37, 20 February 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/482052062.html, 
where the Tribunal held that a Christian from South Korea faced a real chance of persecution on the 
ground of his religion for refusing to undergo compulsory military service by reason of his 
conscientious objection. Although the Tribunal found that the law allowing for compulsory service 
was, on its face, a “non-discriminatory law of ge neral application”, it indirectly discriminated 
against the applicant on the ground of religion. Amongst the factors considered were: the absence of 
a legislative limit on the number of times a person could be recalled or subjected to penalties of up 
to three years imprisonment for evading, as well as the absence of alternative military service. 
89  Article 19 of the Constitution, above footnote 7. 
90  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
91  WRITENET, Eritrea: Challenges and Crisis of a New State, above footnote 74. 
92  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
93  See, for instance HRW, World Report 2009 , above footnote 8; and US Department of State, 2008 
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above footnote 4. See also Cecilia M. Bailliet, 
Examining Sexual Violence in the Military Within the Context of Eritrean Asylum Claims Presented 
in Norwa”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 200 7, Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp. 471-510 (hereafter 
“Bailliet, Examining Sexual Violence in the Military”). 
 18

abuse is allegedly punished by detention, to rture and ill-treatment, including exposure 
to extreme heat and limitation of food rations . No effective mechanism for redress or 
protection exits within or outside the mi litary, and perpetra tors generally go 
unpunished.  Women, who become pregnant as  a result, are decommissioned and are 
likely to experience social ostracism from their families and communities as 
unmarried mothers, 94 and may resort to committing suicide to escape the cycle of 
abuse.95 In light of the pervasive gender-based violence within the military and its 
serious consequences, women draft evaders/de serters may be at ri sk of persecution as 
a particular social group.96
Family members and relatives of draft evader s and deserters may also be at risk of 
persecution due to the prac tice of substitute service and/or punitive fines and 
imprisonment, and could be considered, in th is respect, as a particular social group. 
Since 2005, the Government has instituted measures to address the widespread 
evasion of and desertion from military servi ce, including: arrest of family members, 
mostly parents, of children who have not reported to the military training camp at 
Sawa for their final year of high school or have not reported for national service; 97 
imposition of fines on families of draft evaders; 98 forced conscription of family 
members, particularly the father, of the draft evader; 99 and withdrawal of trade 
                                                 
94  AI, Eritrea: ‘You have no right to ask’, above footnote 10; and Bailliet, Examining Sexual Violence 
in the Military, above footnote 93, pp. 471-510. Moreover, abortion is illegal in Eritrea. See Articles 
528 and ff. of the ETPC, above footnote 71. 
95  Bailliet, Examining Sexual Violence in the Military, above footnote 93, pp. 471-510. 
96  See UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 1: Gender-Related Persecution , above 
footnote 45; and UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 2: “Membership of a 
Particular Social Group” Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees , HCR/GIP/02/02, 7 May 2002, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3d36f23f4.html (hereafter “UNHCR, Guidelines on 
International Protection No. 2: Membership of a Particular Social Group ). In VSAI v. Minister for 
Immigration & Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs  [2004] FCA 1602, 8 December 2004 (Federal 
Court of Australia), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48abd57d0.html, the Federal 
Court of Australia held that the Refugee Review Tribunal erred in finding that the incidence of rape 
and sexual abuse by military offi cers of Eritrean female draftees di d not occur on a sufficient scale 
to constitute persecution. It further held that the Tribunal misdirected itself by not asking whether 
rape, sexual abuse and impregnation by military officers (of which facts it was satisfied) was 
deliberate or pre-meditated conduct, exposure to which the applicant coul d not be expected to 
tolerate. The Court also recognized that Eritrean “female draftees” constituted a particular social 
group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention. 
97  Amnesty International , Eritrea: Over 500 parents of conscripts arrested , AFR 64/015/2006, 21 
December 2006, available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id 
=ENGAFR640152006. See also Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch World Report 2007 – 
Eritrea, 11 January 2007, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45aca29eb.html; IRB, 
Eritrea: Military service, above footnote 25; Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 
2008 – Eritrea , 28 May 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ 
docid/483e27893c.html (hereafter “AI Report 2008”). 
98  HRW, World Report 2009, above footnote 8. Since 2005, families of draft evaders have reportedly 
been fined at least 50,000 Nakfa (US $3,300). This amount is more than 10 times the amount 
envisaged in the Proclamation on National Service, above footnote 49, (3,000 Bir/4,600 Nakfa) as a 
sanction for draft evaders and no provisions exis t for vicarious liability in the Proclamation 
(Articles 6 and 9). 
99  Human Rights Watch, World Report 2008 – Eritrea, 31 January 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47a87c0141.html. See also Awate.com, Thousands of 
Eritrean Parents Arrested in the Southern Re gion; Government Also Targets Young Females , 17 
July 2005, available at http://www.awate.com/artman/publish/article_4186.shtml. According to 
information obtained through UNHCR-conducted inte rviews with Eritrean deserters in 2008, the 
 19

licenses and closure of businesses held by members of the nuclear family of a 
deserter/draft evader.100
Furthermore the authorities reportedly do not grant exit visas to those of military age. 
Among those routinely denied exit visas are men up to th e age of 54, regardless of 
whether they have completed national service, and women under the age of 47, 101 as 
well as students wanting to study abroad. 102 Individuals of, or approaching, draft age, 
who leave Eritrea illegally, will be at risk of persecution as a (perceived) deserter or 
draft evader upon return to Eritrea. This is equally true for those who have completed 
active national service or have been demobilized, given that all persons of draft age 
are subject to national service and, as such, are liable to be recalled. 
(b) Political opponents and critics 
 (i) Members of opposition political groups and dissidents 
The unimplemented Eritrean Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to form 
organizations for political ends. 103 The People’s Front for Democracy and Justice 
(PFDJ), which came to power in 1993 by popular referendum, is however the only 
authorized political party.104 As a result, opposition groups have been driven out of 
the country and, since late 2004, operate only in exile.105  
Opposition groups abroad, most of which are based in neighbouring Ethiopia and 
Sudan, are split into two major affiliations, namely (i) the Democratic Party, which 
has agreed a common set of objectives with two older parties (the Eritrean Liberation 
Front (ELF) and the Eritrean Liberation Front-Revolutionary Council (ELF-RC, a 
splinter group of the ELF)); and (ii) th e Eritrean National Alliance (ENA), an 
umbrella organisation consisting of several and varied opposition groups. 106 Some of 
                                                                                                                                            
parents (whether father or mother) will de detained  and/or interrogated every time a member of the 
(immediate) family deserts. 
100  Information obtained through UNHCR-conducted interviews. 
101  Mail & Guardian Online, In Eritrea, youth frustrated by long service , 18 July 2008, available at 
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-07-18-in-eritrea-youth-frustrated-by-long-service. See also 
United Kingdom decision relating to exit visas for soldiers: IN (Draft evaders – evidence of risk) , 
above footnote 78. Note the ages of those deni ed visas do not coincide with the maximum age 
limits for compulsory service and are much higher  particularly for women. In 2006, the authorities 
began refusing exit visas to children as young as 11 on the grounds that they were approaching the 
age of eligibility for national service.  The author ities also have refused exit visas to children as 
young as five either on the grounds that they were approaching the age of eligibility for national 
service or because their expatriate parents had not  paid the two percent income tax required of all 
citizens residing abroad. See US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices, above footnote 4. 
102  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
103 Article 19 of the Constitution, above footnote 7. Article 14 also states that no one may be 
discriminated against on account of their political views. 
104  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above footnote 4. See 
also The Economist Intelligence Unit, Eritrea Country Profile 2008. 
105  Economist Intelligence Unit, Eritrea Country Profile 2008. 
106  Economist Intelligence Unit, Eritrea Country Profile  2008. Further information on opposition and 
disapora groups is available at: Eritrean Liberation Front-Revolutiona ry Council (ELF-RC), 
www.awate.com / http://www.nharnet.com; Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF), www.awate.com / 
http://www.omaal.net; Eritrean National Alliance, http://www.erit-alliance.com/Info/ 
organstruct.asp. See also UK Home Office, 2008 COI Report, above footnote 59. 
 20

these groups broadcast radio and television programmes to Eritrea via satellite, 107 and 
maintain active websites highly critical of the Eritrean Government. 
The viability of freely operating from S udan has, however, become restricted 
following the restoration of diplomatic ties in 2006 between Sudan and Eritrea, 108 and 
the subsequent Sudanese Government’s pledge to ban the Eritrean opposition groups 
operating within its territory. 109 Since then, Sudan has re portedly provided Eritrea 
with intelligence on the m ilitary bases of Eritrean opposition groups, opposition 
activists, and the type of assistance prev iously provided to the Eritrean opposition by 
the Sudanese Government.110 Soon after, the opposition radio station, Al Sharq, which 
was broadcasting from Khartoum, was shut down.111  
In September 2001, 11 PFDJ Government mini sters and four former independent 
movement leaders, known as the Group of  15 (G15), were arrested after publicly 
calling for democratic reforms, including the implementation of the Constitution and 
holding of elections.112 They have reportedly been held at the Eiraeiro prison 
complex, in solitary confinement and incommunicado,113 and subjected to torture and 
other ill-treatment.114 It has been reported that at least nine have died in detention, and 
four were still held without a charge. 115 There are further reports of politically 
motivated arrests and detention,116 including that of General Ogbe Abraha, the former 
                                                 
107  UK Home Office, 2008 COI Report , above footnote 59. AllAfrica.com, Eritrea: Opposition 
Launches Satellite TV Against President , 28 February 2008, available at 
http://allafrica.com/stories/200802281127.html. 
108  UNHCR, UNHCR Global Report 2006, Sudan – Chad Situation , June 2007, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/466d20a32.html. 
109  Sudan Tribune, Eritrean opposition groups call on Sudan to lift imposed ban , 9 June 2008, 
available at http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article27455. Sudan has also reportedly denied 
these groups the possibility to conduct their meetings on Sudanese territory. See Eastern Sudan 
Peace Agreement , available through Sudan Tribune at http://www.sd.undp.org/doc/Eastern 
_States_Peace_Agreement.pdf. 
110  Although UNHCR is not in a position to corroborate them, there are reports that Sudan has 
condoned the abduction of Eritreans from its terr itory by Eritrean intelligen ce services. See, for 
instance, Sudan Tribune, Eritrea reportedly abducting 4,000 Eritreans from Sudan , 26 December 
2007, available at http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25321. See also, Sudan Tribune , 
Asmara and Khartoum accused of deporting Eritrean from Sudan , 11 December 2007, available at 
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25120.  
111 Awate.com, Restricting The Opposition's Influence , 26 November 2006, available at 
http://www.awate.com/portal/content/view/4398/19/. 
112  US Department of State, Background Note on Eritrea , April 2008, available at 
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2854.htm. 
113  UK Home Office, 2008 COI Report, above footnote 59, para. 6.06. 
114  UK Home Office, 2008 COI Report, above footnote 59, para. 6.06. 
115  UK Home Office, 2008 COI Report , above footnote 59. Some were reportedly charged with 
treason, but had not yet been prosecuted. See also AI Report 2008, above footnote 97; and US 
Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
116  According to UN Human Rights Council, The right to freedom of opinion and expression: report of 
the Special Rapporteur, Ambeyi Ligabo: addendum, A/HRC/4/27/Add.1, 26 March 2007, para. 224, 
available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?c=61&su=69, some 65 political prisoners, 
including former ministers, high-ranking civil and military officers, members of the opposition and 
journalists are held at the Eiraeiro detention cen tre, the majority having been arrested in the 
aftermath of the September 2001 protests. At the tim e of the publication of the report, charges were 
yet to be brought against the prisoners. Further politically-motivated arrests were reported; see AI 
Report 2008, above footnote 97. 
 21

Chief of staff of the Eritrean Armed Forces, who allegedly died in detention due to the 
harsh prison conditions and denial of medical treatment.117
In light of the crackdown which led up to, inter alia, the arrest and detention of the 
G15 and the banning of all privately owne d newspapers, and given the subsequent 
politically motivated arrests, members of, or persons associated with or perceived to 
be associated with, opposition political groups, as well as political dissidents or 
persons perceived as political dissidents, may have a well-founded fear of persecution 
on the basis of their political opinion.118
 (ii) Journalists and other media professionals 
There are constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of speech and expression, 
including freedom of the press and other media.119 Notwithstanding these provisions, 
the Government closed down all privat ely-owned press and media outlets in 
September 2001 on national security grounds. 120 The crackdown on independent 
media followed the publication of dissenting or critical viewpoints by some National 
Assembly members, and resulted in the a rrest and detention of  several journalists. 121 
In 2008, only three repo rters representing foreign news organizations (AFP, Reuters, 
Al-Jazeera) were allowed to operate in th e country, albeit freque ntly prevented from 
filing stories with their news organizations. 122 Foreign newspapers are rarely sold and 
their importation is prohibited.123 Eritrea was the last country in Africa to enable local 
                                                 
117  AI Report 2008, above footnote 97. 
118  Several national jurisdictions have recognized that actual or perceived political dissenters faced a 
real risk of persecution upon return  to Eritrea. See, for instance, RRT Case No. 0806040  [2008] 
RRTA 431, 20 November 2008 (Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia), available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/498c49aa2.html. The Tribunal held that the applicant had a 
well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of her political opinion. The Tribunal found that the 
applicant’s unauthorized departure from Eritrea, her application for refugee status, her criticism of 
the Eritrean government, and her fa mily background, had and would continue to attract the adverse 
interest of the Eritrean. The coun try of origin information clear ly indicated that the Eritrean 
Government did not tolerate dissent (real or perceived) and citizens targeted by the authorities had 
no means of defending themselves. 
119 Article 19 of the Constitution, above footnote 7. 
120  UN Commission on Human Rights, Promotion and protection of human rights : human rights 
defenders: report: addendum / submitted by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on 
Human Rights Defenders, Hina Jilani , E/CN.4/2006/95/Add.5, 6 March 2006, para. 563, available 
at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?c=61&su=69 (hereafter “UN Commission on 
Human Rights, Promotion and protection of human rights defenders ”). The Eritrean Press 
Proclamation No. 90/1996 , 10 June 1996, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48512e992.html, provides the legal framework for journalists 
and media operators. Intentional reporting of falsehoods, but also any material deemed to be 
contrary to national or public interest or that could be construed to cause societal divisions and 
dissension will constitute a violation of the Press Proclamation. 
121 In 2004, the BBC correspondent was expelled from Eritrea; see BBC Country Profile Eritrea, above 
footnote 3. See also Committee to Protect Journalists, Attacks on the Press in 2001 – Eritrea , 
February 2002, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47c5662223.html. See also Jonah 
Fisher, Quick exit: BBC expelled from Eritrea , BBC, 10 September 2004, available at 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3644630.stm
122  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
123  Freedom House, Freedom of the Press 2008 – Eritrea , 29 April 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4871f60124.html. Additionally, in 2003, the Government 
prohibited access to the UNMEE-operated information centres by posting guards outside the 
offices. See UN Commission on Human Rights, Promotion and protection of human rights 
defenders, above footnote 120, para. 564. 
 22

Internet access, with Internet connectio ns reported to be limited, unreliable or 
censored.124
In November 2006, the Government repo rtedly conducted a round-up of State 
journalists and media professionals wit hout providing any explanation as to the 
charges investigated. At least nine St ate-owned media workers were reportedly 
arrested.125
Since the major police operations in 2001 and the ensuing crackdown on the private 
press and dissident journalists, the freedom of  the press has been seriously curtailed, 
and Eritrea is currently ranked last in Re porters Without Borders’ worldwide press 
freedom index.126 Journalists expressing, or perceived as holding, dissenting views, or 
merely reporting on opposition groups activities, remain at particular risk of arbitrary 
arrest and detention, and, as such can dem onstrate a well-founded fear of persecution 
on the ground of (imputed) political opinion. 
 (iii) Trade unionists and labour rights activists 
Non-governmental political, civic, and soci al organizations are largely prohibited 
from operating in Eritrea, and any group of more than seven persons cannot assemble 
without the prior approval of the Government, despite the right to freely assemble 
being entrenched in the Constitution.127 Although, union leaders are typically 
Government employees, and thus union ac tivities are generally sanctioned, the 
Government did not approve the formation of any unions in 2008. 128 Furthermore, 
given past arbitrary arrests and detention of prominen t trade unionists and labour 
rights activists, 129 such individuals may be at risk  of persecution on the basis of 
(imputed) political opinion. 
                                                 
124  UN Economic Commission for Africa, Eritrea Internet Connectivity , available at 
http://www.uneca.org/aisi/nici/country_profiles/Eritrea/erinter.htm. See also, The World Bank, 
Eritrea Country Brief , April 2008, available at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/ 
COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/ERITREAEXT/0,,menuPK:351396~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~t
heSitePK:351386,00.html. It is also reported that in 2004, the Government placed all internet cafes 
under its supervision. See UN Commission on Human Rights, Promotion and protection of human 
rights defenders, above footnote 120. 
125  UN Human Rights Council, The right to freedom of opinion and expression: report of the Special 
Rapporteur, Ambeyi Ligabo: addendum , A/HRC/4/27/Add.1, 26 March 2007, para. 225, available 
at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?c=61&su=69. 
126  Reporters Without Borders, Annual Report 2008 – Eritrea , 13 February 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47b418b215.html. It was reported that, as of October 2008, 
there were 18 “verifiable” cases of detained Er itrean journalists or Ministry of Information 
employees. See Reporters Without Borders, State TV journalist secretly sentenced in 2006 to five 
years of forced labour , 30 October 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4917f24117.html. 
127  Article 19(4) of the Constitution, above footnote 7, guarantees that every person has the right to 
assemble and to demonstrate peacefully together with others, as well as to form organizations for 
“political, social, economic and cultural ends.” 
128  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
129  UN Commission on Human Rights, Promotion and protection of human rights defenders , above 
footnote 120, paras. 555, 558 and 561. In early 2005, three high-profile trade unionist were arrested, 
one of whom had allegedly urged workers at a Coca-Cola plant to engage in industrial action to 
protest against the worsening of their living standards. All three are still believed to be detained and 
held incommunicado. See International Federation for Human Rights, Observatory for the 
Protection of Human Rights Defenders Annual Report 2006 – Eritrea , 14 March 2007, available at  
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48747cd278.html. 
 23

(c) Members of minority religious groups  
The unimplemented Eritrean Constitu tion guarantees freedom of religion, 130 yet such 
rights are severely restricted for all but the four official ly recognized re ligions, i.e. 
Sunni Islam, the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the 
Evangelical Lutheran Church.131  
In 2002, the Government required all religiou s groups, other than the four officially 
recognized, to close their places  of worship and register prior to engaging in religious 
activities. This invitation was not extende d to certain groups, including the Jehovah’s 
Witness.132 An additional requirement to publish membership lists has prevented 
some groups from applying for registration due to fear of reprisals. Although the 
Baha’i faith, the Faith Mission Churc h, the Orthodox Presbyt erian Church and 
Seventh Day Adventists have completed the registration process, they are not allowed 
to worship publicly.133  
Members of non-registered religions risk punitive measures for worshiping, including 
the confiscation of church property, arrests and detention, tortur e and other abuses, 
sometimes resulting in death.134 Many followers of minority faiths are arrested,135 and 
detained incommunicado in harsh conditions, often in army camps and police 
headquarters throughout the country , without charge or trial. 136 Security forces are 
                                                 
130 See Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, above footnote 7. Pursuant to Article 14(2), no one 
should be discriminated against on the ground of religion. Article 19 guarantees the freedom of 
conscience and religion.  
131  US Department of State, 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom – Eritrea , 19 September 
2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48d5cbb0e.html (hereafter “US Department 
of State, 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom ”). See also US Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, USCIRF Annual Report 2008 – Eritrea , 1 May 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48556998c.html (hereafter “ USCIRF Annual Report 2008 ”). 
No confirmed figures on religious affiliation are av ailable, but approximately half of the Eritrean 
population is Sunni Muslim, and some 30 percent, Orthodox Christian. The remainder includes 
Easter Rite and Roman Catholics, Protestants, smaller numbers of Seventh Day Adventists and 
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a small number of Baha’is. Approximately two percent of the population 
practices traditional indigenous religions. See, for instance, US Library of Congress – Federal 
Research Division, Country Profile: Eritrea , September 2005, available at 
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Eritrea.pdf. According to the UN Committee on the Rights of 
the Child, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention: 
Convention on the Rights of the Child : 2nd and 3rd periodic reports of States parties due in 2006: 
Eritrea, CRC/C/ERI/3, 23 October 2007, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
474ae57a2.html (hereafter “UN CRC, 2nd and 3rd periodic reports of States parties due in 2006: 
Eritrea”), “a child shall be registered by any of th e religious institutions (the Muslim, Orthodox, 
Catholic and Evangelical Churches), before the child is two months old” (para. 55). 
132  USCIRF Annual Report 2008, above footnote 131. 
133  Minority Rights Group International, State of the World’s Minorities 2008 – Eritrea , March 2008, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48a7ead33c.html. 
134  See US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
135  AI Report 2008, above footnote 97. 
136 Persecution.org, The dismantling of the Eritrean Orthodox Church , 7 May 2008, available at 
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=7582. Helena Berhane, a gospel 
singer and member of the Rema church, had been detained incommunicado without charge or trial 
for two and a half years at Mai Serwa military camp, prior to her release in October 2006. She 
reportedly spent most of her detention in inhuman and degrading conditions inside a metal shipping 
container and was tortured many times to make her recant her faith. In October 2006, she was 
admitted to hospital in Asmara as a result of new beatings, and was said to be confined to a 
wheelchair due to the injuries she su stained to her feet and legs; see Amnesty International, Helen 
Berhane – Eritrea , 7 November 2006, available at http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_ 
 24

reportedly using force, sometimes amounting to torture, to compel detainees to 
renounce their religious beliefs as  a pre-condition of release.137 Children belonging to 
unrecognized faiths are allegedly arrested and held in the sa me detention facilities as 
adults.138 In addition, the practice of  one of the four recogn ized faiths is sometimes 
not allowed in the armed forces or during national service.139
Jehovah’s Witnesses have been particularly  targeted by the authorities. Some 
members have been detained for more than a decade for refusing to undertake military 
service,140 and many are reportedly denied the rights of citizenship in Eritrea, 
including access to public services, issuan ce of passports, nationa l identity cards, 
business licenses and exit visas.141
Although there is no officially-designated St ate religion in Eritrea, the Government 
has traditionally maintained close ties with the Orthodox Church. In recent years, 
however, Eritrean Orthodox church leaders, previously exempt from military service, 
have been reportedly sent to military camps. 142 The 2005 dismissal of the Patriarch 
Abune Antonios, who reportedly objected to  Government interference in church 
activities and the arrest of three priests, also indicates that the Government does not 
tolerate any dissent or criticism, even from the established religious groups.143
                                                                                                                                            
details.asp?ActionID=10; and UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on 
Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir: addendum , A/HRC/4/21/Add.1, 8 March 2007, 
para. 129, available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?c=61&su=69 (hereafter “ 2007 
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief”). 
137  USCIRF Annual Report 2008, above footnote 131. See also 2007 Report of the Special Rapporteur 
on Freedom of Religion or Belief , above footnote 136, paras. 131-133; and UN Human Rights 
Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir: 
addendum, A/HRC/7/10/Add.1, 28 February 2008, para. 89, both available at 
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?c=61&su=69 (hereafter “ 2008 Report of the Special 
Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief”). 
138  AI Report 2008, above footnote 97. See also US Department of State, 2008 Report on International 
Religious Freedom , above footnote 131, and UN CRC, Convention on the Rights of the Child: 
concluding observations: Eritrea, above footnote 61, para. 36. In 2003, 57 Christian girls and boys 
were reportedly held in metal containers for possessing bibles. See Amnesty International, Eritrea: 
57 Christian girls and boys held in metal containers for possessing bibles , 19 September 2003, 
available at http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=14897. In December 2007, 35 
men, women, and children belonging to the Faith Missions Church, were imprisoned and eventually 
sent to the Wi’a Military Camp. 
139  US Department of State, 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom, above footnote 131. 
140  See 2008 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief , above footnote 137, 
para. 94. According to reports, at least three Jehovah’s Witnesses had been imprisoned since 24 
September 1994 in Sawa prison for conscientious objection. In 2008, the Government arrested 19 
Jehovah’s Witnesses; see US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices, above footnote 4. 
141  Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Eritrea: Repression of religious freedom, torture and arbitrary 
detention, 1 July 2007, available at http://www.online2.church123.com/attach.asp?clientURN= 
christiansolidarityworldwide&attachFileName=001ce79a6a106404529f57fd49f4de4e.attach&attach
OriginalFileName=CSW_briefing_Eritrea_June_2007.pdf. 
142 Persecution.org, The dismantling of the Eritrean Orthodox Church , 7 May 2008, available at 
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=7582. 
143  BBC, Eritrea church leader ‘dismissed’ , 26 August 2005, available at http://news.bbc.co.u 
k/2/hi/africa/4187362.stm. Cf. Compass Direct News, Government announces ‘election’ of new 
Orthodox patriarch , 4 May 2007, available at http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display 
.php?page=news&length=long&lang=en&idelement=4870; and BBC, Eritrea denies patriarch 
sacked, 31 August 2005, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4201654.stm. In February 
 25

State persecution of non-sanctioned relig ious minorities, including Pentecostals, 
Evangelicals and Jehovah’s Witness, appears widespread and systematic. 144 Several 
jurisdictions have recognized that religious minorities face severe discrimination 
amounting to persecution and continue to be targeted by the Eritrean authorities on the 
ground of their religion. 145 Although, in many cases, religious affiliation is the main 
factor for persecutory measures,146 political opinion is increasingly linked to religious 
affiliation. For instance, non-traditional Christian groups are, alongside Muslim 
extremists, perceived as threats to national security. 147 Although Islamic militants 
based in Sudan had in the past  engaged in a low-level insurgency against the Eritrean 
Government, it is believed that Muslim suspects detained without charge by the 
security forces are being held primarily for their political views, including their 
criticism of anti-Muslim discrimination or their opposition to the Government-
recognized leadership of the Muslim community, rather than for supporting or 
engaging in violence.148
                                                                                                                                            
2008, it was reported that Mr. Antonios had been held incommunicado for five months and that his 
health was at serious risk as a result of being deprived of adequate medical assistance for his 
diabetes. See 2008 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief , above 
footnote 137, para. 91. 
144  In 2005, the US Government declared Eritrea a “country of particular concern” on account of its 
restrictions on religious freedom. See USCIRF Annual Report 2008, above footnote 131. 
145 In YT (Minority Church Members at Risk) Eritrea  CG [2004] UKIAT 00218, 9 August 2004, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/46836b130.html, the UK Immigration Appeals 
Tribunal allowed the appeal of an Eritrean who had converted to the Pentecostal Church given the 
evidence as to the continued arrests on the basis of religion, and the Eritrean authorities’ attitude 
towards minority churches. See also Refugee Appeal No. 75028 , 13 May 2004, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/477e12142.html, where the RSAA held that the appellant, a 
Pentecostal Christian, had a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of her religion. The 
RSAA was satisfied that the appellant faced a real chance of being identified as a Pentecostal 
Christian during her military service, and thus, would be at risk of being detained and physically 
mistreated in an effort to force her to reconvert to the Orthodox Church. 
146  See UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 6: Religion-Based Refugee Claims under 
Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees , 
HCR/GIP/04/06, 28 April 2004, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4090f9794.html. 
147  USCIRF Annual Report 2008, above footnote 131. The report further states that:  
“[t]he The government’s concerns regarding religious activities appear to be linked to real or 
perceived security threats, and government spokespersons have cited Pentecostals, along with 
Muslim extremists, as threats to national security. Islamic militants operating out of Sudan 
have engaged in a low-level insurgency against the governm ent, occasionally employing 
terrorism as a tactic in their campaign to establish an Islami c state. However, human rights 
organizations report that they consider it likely that many of the Muslim suspects detained 
without charge by the security forces are being held primarily for their views, including their 
criticism of alleged anti-Muslim discrimination or their opposition to the government-
recognized leadership of the Muslim community, rather than for supporting or engaging in 
violence.”  
See also BBC, Eritrea targeting ‘permitted’ churches , 20 April 2006, available at 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4924252.stm. 
148  In September 2008, a group of Muslim scholars, students and clerics were arrested and held 
incommunicado. See Amnesty International, Eritrea Torture, AFR 64/005/2008, 5 September 2008, 
available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AFR64/005/2008/en. See also Christian 
Solidarity Worldwide, Eritrea: Repression of religious freedom, torture and arbitrary detention , 1 
July 2007, available at http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=report&id=86. 
 26

(d) Women 
Violence against women, including domest ic violence and rape, is reportedly 
widespread in Eritrea, despite cr iminalization of such practices. 149 However, rape 
inside marriage is not considered a crime. 150 Incidents of rape are generally not 
addressed openly in Eritrea due to the stig ma attached to the victim and her family. 151 
When rape is reported, the authorities repo rtedly encourage the perpetrator to marry 
the victim. 152 Furthermore, cases of domestic violence are rarely prosecuted and no 
legal penalties for such crimes are enshrined into law. 153 Abortion is illegal 154 and 
pregnancy out-of-wedlock is strongly c ondemned by the community, and could lead 
to physical and psychological violence, or even death.155  
Although recently banned, 156 FGM is still prevalent in  the country, continuing to 
affect an estimated 90 percent of the female population; the enforcement of 
Proclamation No. 158/2007 abolishing FGM is still difficult to ascertain.157
                                                 
149  See US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above footnote 4; 
and UK Home Office, 2008 COI Report, above footnote 59, paras. 35.18-25.24.  
150  Article 589 of the ETPC, above footnote 71. 
151  UNICEF, Assessment of Violence against Children in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region: 
Results of an Initial Desk Review for the UN Secretary General’s Study on Violence against 
Children, May 2005, available at http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_vac_ 
esarassessment.doc. 
152  See US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above footnote 4. 
The most serious transgressions occur in the military context, often as a result of military 
conscription, as discussed in more detail in Section IV.2.(a) Draft evaders/deserters of these 
Guidelines. See also World Organisation Against Torture, The World Organisation Against Torture 
(OMCT) expresses its concern regarding violence against girls in Eritrea at the 33rd session of the 
Committee on the Rights of the Child , 20 May 2003, available at http://www.omct.org/index.php? 
id=&lang=eng&actualPageNumber=1&articleId=4703&itemAdmin=article. 
153  See US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
154  Pursuant to Articles 528 and ff. of the ETPC, abov e footnote 71, abortion is illegal even in cases of 
rape and incest. Intentional abortions can result in sentences of between three months to five years 
for the mother. Assisting in an abortion will recei ve more severe minimum sentences although the 
maximum is also five years. See also UN Depart ment of Economic and Social Affairs, Population 
Division, Eritrea, Abortion Policy , 2002, available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/ 
publications/abortion/doc/eritre1.doc
155  World Organisation Against Torture, The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) expresses 
its concern regarding violence against girls in Eritrea at the 33rd session of the Committee on the 
Rights of the Child, 20 May 2003, available at http://www.omct.org/index.php?id=&lang=eng& 
actualPageNumber=1&articleId=4703&itemAdmin=article. In the Gash-Barka region, pregnancy 
before marriage is reportedly viewed as a crime and pregnant girls may be outcast from their homes 
and communities, beaten, stoned or even killed by members of their family or community. See 
HABEN and CARE, Research Study on sexual and gender-based violence in eleven target 
communities in refugee returnee populations in the Gash Barka area of Eritrea, 2002, available at 
http://www.preventgbvafrica.org/Downloads/GashBarkaResearch.pdf. 
156  Proclamation 158/2007, A Proclamation to Abolish Female Circumcision , 20 March 2007, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48578c812.html, came into force on 20 March 
2007. The penalties for those performing FGM range fr om two to three years in prison, including a 
significant fine, and five to ten years’ imprisonment if the performance of such practices results in 
death (Article 4.1). Accessories to the perpetration of the procedure are subject to six months to one 
year imprisonment and a smaller fine (Article 4.2). Medical professionals who perform FGM face 
aggravated penalties imposed at the discretion of the court and may be banned from medical 
practice for up to two years (Article 4.3). 
157  Amongst the FGM awareness-raising measures, the Eritrean Government has reportedly distributed 
of the Proclamation No. 158/2007 to all administrative regions and 400 Anti-FGM/C committees, 
which were established in six regions; mobilized 400 religious leaders of all faiths-Muslim, 
 27

 
Failure to conform to conventional roles and the legal restri ctions concerning 
women’s sexual and reproductive rights ma y expose women and girls to violence, 
harassment or discrimination in Eritrea. As  such, women with pa rticular profiles, 
including victims of domestic violence or ot her serious forms of violence, such as 
rape, women who have undergone abortion or have conceived out-of-wedlock, 
women and girls at risk of harmful traditiona l practices, may be at risk of persecution 
on the ground of membership of a particular social group. 158 Where non-conformity 
to traditional roles is perceived as opposi ng traditional power structures, the risk of 
persecution may be linked to the ground of religion and/or political opinion.159  
(e) Homosexuals 
Homosexuality is illegal in Eritrea. 160 Pursuant to the ETPC, sexual, or any other 
“indecent”, act performed with a pers on of the same sex is prohibited, 161 and 
offenders are prosecuted and punished. 162 Those, who have previously come to the 
attention of the authorities  due to their sexual orie ntation, may be targeted. 163 
                                                                                                                                            
Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Lutheran churches to denounce th e practice of FGM/C; 
developed and broadcast 20 radio slots on the abandonment of FGM/C in nine local languages to 
raise public awareness on the harmful effects of FGM/C; developed 5,000 FGM/C training manuals 
in two local languages and distributed them to the regions. See UN Committee on the Rights of the 
Child, Written replies by the Government of Eritrea to the list of issues , CRC/C/ERI/Q/3/Add.1, 18 
July 2008, paras. 71-73, available at http://tb.ohchr.org/default.aspx?country=er. See also UN CRC, 
2nd and 3rd periodic reports of States parties due in 2006: Eritrea, above footnote 131, paras. 183-
190. Despite these awareness-ra ising efforts, , the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 
remains “concerned that such measures need to be strengthened and mainstreamed in a sustainable 
manner”, through, inter alia, effectively enforcing the criminalization of female genital mutilation; 
allocating adequate resources for the implementation of the national plan of action, particularly in 
rural areas; retraining, where appropriate, for practitioners of female genital mutilation and support 
them to find alternative sources of income. See UN CRC, Convention on the Rights of the Child: 
concluding observations: Eritrea, above footnote 61, para. 61. 
158  See UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 2: Membership of a Particular Social 
Group, above footnote 96. See also Islam (A.P.) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; R 
v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, Ex Parte Shah (A.P.) , Session 1998-1999, 25 March 
1999 (United Kingdom House of Lords), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
3dec8abe4.html, where women in Pakistan (at risk of domestic violence) were considered to 
constitute a particular social group. The Court found that State protection was not available as 
discrimination against women was partly tolerated and partly sanctioned by the State. 
159  See UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 1: Gender-Related Persecution , above 
footnote 45, paras. 25-26. 
160  Several sources incorrectly state that homosex uality is not illegal. See, for instance, UK Home 
Office, 2008 COI Report , above footnote 59; and Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 
Eritrea: Legislation and legal protection available to homosexuals; their treatment by society and 
government authorities, ERI102153.E, 28 February 2007, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/469cd6b815.html. 
161  See Article 600 (“Unnatural carnal offences”) of  the ETPC, above footnote 71. See also See also 
International Lesbian and Gay Association, State-sponsored Homophobia – A world survey of laws 
prohibiting same sex activity between consenting adults , April 2007, available at 
http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/State_sponsored_homophobia_ILGA_07.pdf. 
162  UK Home Office, 2008 COI Report, above footnote 59. 
163  See letter of 9 September 2005 from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as quoted in UK 
Home Office, 2008 COI Report, above footnote 59, para. 23.04: 
“[…] homosexuality is dealt with severely in Eritrea and that anybody with a known history of 
this kind would find it very difficult to return and reside in the country. If the individual had 
 28

Homosexuals are reportedly arrested and detained in the same facilities as (suspected) 
political dissidents. 164 Furthermore, homosexuals face severe societal 
discrimination.165 The Government has reportedly openly accused foreign 
governments of promoting homosexual pr actices in order to undermine its 
authority.166
Homosexuals in Eritrea may, thus, be at ri sk of persecution or ill-treatment on the 
ground of their membership of a partic ular social group, i.e. their sexual 
orientation,167 since they do not, or are perceived not to, conform to prevailing legal, 
cultural and social norms. 168 Furthermore, the existence of criminal sanctions for 
homosexual activities in Eritrea is likely to impede access to State protection where 
persecutory acts are perpetra ted by non-State actors, such as family or community 
members.169
                                                                                                                                            
previously come to the attention of the authorities in the context of his/her sexuality there 
could be problems in gaining entry to Eritrea and he/she would certainly be ‘ear-marked’.” 
There were uncorroborated reports that known homosexuals in the military were subjected to severe 
abuse; see US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above  
footnote 4. 
164  Behind the Mask, 6 men arrested in Asmara , 6 November 2003, available at 
http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=213. See also GlobalGayz, Eritrea: Asmara Military 
Police arrested 6 gay men in October 11/03, 5 November 2003, available at 
http://www.globalgayz.com/eritrea-news.html. 
165  See, for instance, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Eritrea: Legislation and legal 
protection available to homosexuals; their treatment by society and government authorities , 
ERI102153.E, 28 February 2007, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
469cd6b815.html; and US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , 
above footnote 4. In 2004, the Government reportedly expelled a number of foreigners from Eritrea 
on the basis of their sexual orientation. 
166  US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, above footnote 4. 
167  See UNHCR, UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and 
Gender Identity, 21 November 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
48abd5660.html (hereafter “UNHCR, Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual 
Orientation”); see also UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 2: Membership of a 
Particular Social Group, above footnote 96. Many jurisdictions have recognized that homosexuals 
may constitute a “particular social group”. See, for instance, Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I& N. 
Dec 819, 12 March 1990 (US Board of Immigration Appeals), available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b6b84.html;; Re GJ, Refugee Appeal No. 1312/93, 30 
August 1995 (New Zealand RSAA), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
3ae6b6938.html; Appellant S395/2002 v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; 
Appellant S396/2002 v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs  [2003] HCA 71, 9 
December 2003 (High Court of Australia), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 
3fd9eca84.html. 
168  UNHCR, Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity , 
above footnote 167, para. 7. See also UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 1: 
Gender-Related Persecution , above footnote 45, paras. 6-7; and UNHCR, Advisory Opinion by 
UNHCR to the Tokyo Bar Association Regarding Refugee Claims Based on Sexual Orientation , 3 
September 2004, para. 3, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4551c0d04.html.  
169  Even in the absence of conclusive country of origin information regarding the enforcement of the 
legal provisions criminalizing homosexual conduct, the pervading or generalized climate of 
homophobia, as evidence by Government display of anti-homosexual rhetoric, societal attitudes, 
etc., may be sufficient indication of the risk of persecution faced by homosexuals in Eritrea. See 
UNHCR, Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity , 
above footnote 167, paras. 21-22. 
 29

3. Exclusion from international refugee protection 
The exclusion clauses contained in Article 1F of the 1951 Convention and Article I(5) 
of the OAU Convention provide for the denial  of refugee status to individuals who 
otherwise would meet the refugee definition set out in Article 1A of the 1951 
Convention and Article I(1) of the OAU  Convention, but who are deemed not 
deserving of international protection on acc ount of the commission of certain serious 
acts. Given the potential serious consequences of exclusion from international refugee 
protection, it is important to  apply the exclusion clause s with great caution and only 
after a full assessment of the individual circumstances of the case.170  
Due to the human rights situat ion in Eritrea, exclusion considerations may be of 
relevance in the cases of a pplicants with certa in backgrounds and profiles, including 
members of the Eritrean military and poli ce forces, members of the executive branch 
of the Government, including the Cabinet, members of opposition groups involved in 
armed attacks, prison wardens and guards, Government informants and agents, and 
Islamic fundamentalists171 who have committed terrorist acts. 
In the relevant cases, it should be determined whether the excludable act falls within 
the definition of the acts specified in Article 1F or Article I(5), as well as whether 
there are serious reasons for considering that the person concerned was individually 
responsible for the act in que stion. Such responsibility flows from the person having 
committed or participated in a criminal act, or on the basis of command/superior 
responsibility for persons in positions of authority. In th is regard, the fact that a 
person was at some point a seni or member of a repressive regime or a member of an 
organization involved in unlawful violence does not in itself entail individual liability 
for excludable acts. Moreover, individual re sponsibility is not established if any 
defences to criminal responsibility apply.172
                                                 
170  UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 5: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: 
Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees , HCR/GIP/03/05, 4 September 
2003, available at  http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f5857684.html (hereafter “UNHCR 
Guidelines on Exclusion ”); and UNHCR, Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion 
Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees , 4 September 2003, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f5857d24.html (hereafter “UNHCR Background 
Note”).  
171  These groups include the Eritrean Islamic Jihad Movement (Harakat al Jihad al Islami), an armed 
opposition group largely based in Sudan credited w ith terrorist activities such as planting of land 
mines in Eritrean territory, especially in farming and pastoral areas; attacks on civilians; destruction 
of property. See Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Eritrea: Al Jihad Al Islammiya, 
ERT36701.E, 16 March 2001, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3df4be2e24.html. 
See also Human Rights Watch, Global Trade Local Impact: Arms Transfers to all Sides in the Civil 
War in Sudan , 1 August 1998, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a8500.html; 
and United States Department of State, U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights 
Practices 2006 – Eritrea , 6 March 2007, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ 
docid/45f056772.html. For a detailed profile of the Eritrean Islamic Jihad Movement, please see 
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terror (START), Terrorist 
Organization Profile: Eritrean Islamic Jihad Movement (EIJM) , available at 
http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=4535 [accessed on 
13 March 2009]. 
172  Detailed guidance in applying the exclusion clauses can be found in UNHCR Guidelines on 
Exclusion and Background Note, above footnote 170. 
 30

In that respect, several jurisdictions have re cognized the availability of the defence of 
duress in cases involving Article 1F (and by analogy I(5)). 173 The issue of duress will 
often arise in the case of forcibly conscripted soldiers. 174 In such cases, “the 
consequences of desertion plus the fore seeability of being put under pressure to 
commit certain acts are relevant factors”.175 The Federal Court of Canada has recently 
held that an asylum-seeker who had been fo rcibly recruited into the Ethiopian army, 
and forced to stand guard while civilian homes were raided for ammunition and to 
assist in the transport of people to a camp where he was aware they would be tortured, 
was not excluded under Article 1F because he had acted under duress.176
4. Internal flight or relocation alternative 
In the assessment of a claim to refugee status in which a well-founded fear of 
persecution has been established in some localized part of the country of origin, the 
assessment of whether or not there is a re location alternative in the individual case 
requires two main sets of analysis, namely its relevance and its reasonableness. For 
both, the personal circumstances of the individual applicant and the conditions in the 
country of origin need to be considered.177
With regard to the “relevance” of an internal fli ght or relocation alternative, it is 
important to assess the willingness and ability of the State to protect from risks 
emanating from the agent of persecution. In the context of Eritrea, the relevance 
                                                 
173  See, for example, SRYYY v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs , 
[2005] FCAFC 42, 17 March 2005 (Federal Court of Australia), available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/42d1211a4.html; Gurung v. Secretary of State for the Home 
Department [2003] EWCA Civ 654, 1 May 2003 (England and Wales Court of Appeal), available 
at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/403e4ac42.html; Refugee Appeal No. 2142/94 , 20 March 
1997 (New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority), available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49997b001a.html. 
174  See Refugee Appeal No. 2142/94, above footnote 173. The RSAA held that where a person acted on 
the orders of other persons in the organization, consideration should be given to whether the person 
“could reasonably have been expected simply to renounce his or her membership [in the 
organization], and indeed whether he or she should have done so earlier if it was clear that the 
situation in question would arise.” 
175  UNHCR Background Note, above footnote 170, para. 70.  
176  Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Asghedom  [2001] FCT 972, 30 August 2001 (Federal 
Court of Canada), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/403dce354.pdf. In a recent 
case, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether duress is relevant as a full or 
partial defense to the allegation that an asylum-seeker assisted in the persecution of others. The 
applicant, an Eritrean national, had been forcibly conscripted into the Eritrean military but refused 
to fight. After two years’ imprisonment, he was forced to work as a prison guard in a military camp 
where the prisoners he guarded were persecuted on account of a 1951 Convention ground. 
Concluding that he assisted in the persecution of prisoners by working as an armed guard, the 
Immigration Judge denied relief on the basis of the persecutor bar, but granted deferral of removal 
under CAT because petitioner was likely to be tortured if returned to Eritrea. Both the Board of 
Immigration Appeals and the Court of Appeal fo r the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision. See 
Negusie v. Holder, Attorney General, No. 07–499, 3 March 2009 (US Supreme Court), available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49c254e72.html; and UNHCR, Negusie v. Mukasey, Brief 
Amicus Curiae, 23 June 2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/486230652.pdf. 
177  UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 4: “Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” 
Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol Relating to the 
Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/03/04, 23 July 2003, p. 3, available at http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-
bin/texis/vtx/ refworld/rwmain?docid=3f2791a44. 
 31

criterion of the internal flight alternative test will normally not be met given that the 
agent of persecution is the State itself in almost all categories of claims.  
In the absence of a risk of persecution or  other serious harm upon relocation, it must 
also be “reasonable” for a claimant to relo cate. Such an assessment must take into 
account the elements of safety and securi ty, human rights standards and options for 
economic survival in order to evaluate if  the individual would be able to live a 
relatively normal life without undue hardship given his or her situation.178
In so far as the risk of persecution emanat es from the State and its agents, internal 
flight or relocation to anothe r part of the country cannot be considered as available, 
given the omnipresence of the military, a well-established network of Government 
informants, and, generally, the State agents ’ countrywide control and reach over the 
population, including through round-ups, hous e searches, setting roadblocks and 
targeting family members. Consequently, where the agent of persecution is the State, 
the relevance criterion of the internal flight alternative test is not met.  
For categories of claimants, such as homo sexuals and women with specific profiles, 
who fear persecution at the hands of non-State agents, i.e. local communities and 
family members, internal relocation to another part of the country may be relevant. 
Whether such relocation is reasonable must be determined on a case by case basis 
taking fully into account the current economic, security and human rights 
environment in Eritrea. Relocation to other tribal or ethnic areas  may not be possible 
due to latent or overt conflicts between such groups, lack of acceptance, and other 
societal and cultural barriers. Relocation to urban centers, such as Asmara, would 
have to be assessed for reasonableness gi ven the reported difficulties surrounding the 
human rights, social and economic situation prevailing in the city. 
5. Cessation of refugee status 
Under Article 1C of the 1951 Convention, re fugee status may cease either through a 
change in the personal circumstances of th e refugee or through changes in objective 
circumstances in the country of origin upon which refugee status was based. With 
respect to the latter, the changes must be fundamental, durable and effective. 
In May 2002, following the end of the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, UNHCR 
announced that, in its view, cessation pur suant to Article 1C(5) of the 1951 
Convention and Article I(4)(e) of the OAU  Convention could be invoked vis-a-vis 
Eritrean refugees, effective 31 D ecember 2002 (Cessation Declaration). 179 The 
cessation clauses were strictly limited to t hose who had fled Eritrea as a result of the 
war of independence and the Ethiopian-Eritrean border conflict seemingly resolved by 
the Algiers Agreements, and, thus, did not ap ply to refugees who had fled for other 
reasons.  
Since the 2002 Cessation Declaration,180 the human rights situation in Eritrea has seen 
a sustained deterioration as illustrated in  the present Guidelines which has created 
new international protection needs. A declar ation of general cessation cannot serve as 
                                                 
178  UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 4: “Internal Flight or Relocation 
Alternative”, above footnote 177 p. 3.  
179 UNHCR Cessation Declaration, above footnote 2. 
180  UNHCR Cessation Declaration, above footnote 2. 
 32

an automatic bar to refugee claims made eith er at the time of a general declaration or 
subsequent to it.181 Hence the 2002 Declaration has no bearing on Eritreans who have 
since fled, or were already outside Eritr ea at the time of the Declaration, and are 
unwilling or unable to return due to a well-f ounded fear of persecution as a result of 
subsequent developments as described in these Guidelines. 
V. Further human rights considerations 
1. Prison conditions 
Prison conditions in Eritrea are, as reported by several sources and claimants 
themselves, very poor.182 Prisoners are reportedly held in unventilated metal shipping 
containers in extreme temperatures or in dark underground cells. 183 Overcrowded and 
unhygienic conditions are reported and me dical treatment is  rarely provided. 184 
Torture is allegedly common, as is long- term solitary confinement, minimal food 
rations, lack of sanitation, hard labour, and death in captiv ity. No independent 
monitoring organization is allowed access to Eritrean prisons.185
2. Forcible return to Eritrea 
Eritreans who are forcibly returned may, according to several reports, face arrest 
without charge, detention, ill-treatment, torture186 or sometimes death at the hands of 
the authorities. They  are reportedly held incommunicado, in over-crowded and 
unhygienic conditions, with litt le access to medical care, sometimes for extended 
periods of time. According to credible s ources, 1,200 persons were forcibly returned 
from Egypt to Eritrea in June 2008, 187 where the majority was detained in military 
                                                 
181  Paragraph 25, Guidelines on International Protection No. 3: Cessation of Refugee Status under 
Article 1C(5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the "Ceased 
Circumstances" Clauses) , UNHCR, HCR/GIP/03/03, 10 February 2003, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3e50de6b4.html. 
182  Committee to Protect Journalists, New revelations about Eiraeiro prison camp – The journalist 
Seyoum Tsehaye is in cell No. 10 of block A01” , 30 January 2008, available at http://www.rsf.org/ 
article.php3?id_article=25251. See also US Department of State , 2007 Country Reports on Human 
Rights Practices, above footnote 57. See also AI Report 2008, above footnote 97. 
183 HRW, World Report 2009, above footnote 8. 
184  AI Report 2008, above footnote 97. See also 2008 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of 
Religion or Belief, above footnote 137, para. 94. 
185 HRW, World Report 2009, above footnote 8. See also particularly for deaths in custody and prison 
conditions Reporters Without Borders, Annual Report 2008 – Eritrea , 13 February 2008, available 
at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47b418b215.html. See also US Department of State, 2007 
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above footnote 57. See also AI Report 2008 , above 
footnote 97. 
186  In October 2008, Ethiopia accused Eritrea of torturing 166 of those returned by Egypt whom Eritrea 
determined were not Eritrean but Ethiopian nationals and were subsequently repatriated to Ethiopia 
under the auspices of the IC RC; see Agence France Presse, Ethiopia accuses Eritrea of torturing 
detainees, 12 October 2008, available at http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/ 
story.html?id=a1853477-9da5-457e-9f91-f15775a82aaa, and Reuters, Ethiopia accuses Eritrea of 
torturing deportees, 12 October 2008, available at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ 
LC582562.htm.. Furthermore, a communication by the Israeli embassy in Asmara indicating that 
Eritrean officials had advised that persons returned “will be placed in rows and shot or thrown into 
torture chambers.” See Haaretz, Eritrean ambassador: Jerusalem must repatriate ‘deserters’, 25 
March, 2008, available at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/968145.html. 
187  UNHCR, UNHCR alarmed over reports of forcible returns of Eritreans from Egypt , 19 June 2008, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/news/NEWS/485a52832.html. See also Amnesty International, 
 33

facilities.188  UNHCR is aware of at least two Eritrean asylum-seekers who have 
arrived in Sudan having escaped from detention following deportation from Egypt in 
June 2008. Eritreans forcibly returned fr om Malta in 2002 and Libya in 2004 were 
arrested on arrival in Eritrea and tortured. Th e returnees were sent to two prisons on 
Dahlak Island and on the Red Sea coast, wh ere most are still believed to be held 
incommunicado.189 There are also unconfirmed reports that some of those returned 
from Malta were killed. 190 In another case, a rejected asylum-seeker was detained by 
the Eritrean authorities upon her forcib le return from the United Kingdom. 191 On  
14 May 2008, German immigration authorities forcibly returned two rejected asylum-
seekers to Eritrea. They were reportedly detained at As mara airport upon arrival and 
are being held incommunicado, and believed to be at risk  of torture or other ill-
treatment.192
For some Eritreans, being outside the country may be suffici ent cause on return to be 
subjected to scrutiny, reprisals and harsh treatment. Individuals may be suspected of 
having sought asylum, participating in diaspora-based opposition meetings or 
otherwise posing a (real or perceived) threat to the Government,193 particularly where 
they have exited the country illegally. 194 It has been reported that, as of September 
2008, a blanket restriction on passport and ex it visa requests has been imposed by the 
                                                                                                                                            
Egypt must stop flights to torture in Eritrea , 13 June 2008, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/485618e21a.html. See also Human Rights Watch , Sinai 
Perils: Risks to Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Egypt and Israel, 12 November 2008, p. 
68, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/491aebbd2.html. It has recently been reported 
that Egypt forcibly returned a further 45 Eritrean migrants; see Human Rights Watch, Egypt: Stop 
Deporting Eritrean Asylum Seekers , 8 January 2009, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49670ba41e.html. 
188  Some of the returnees, includ ing pregnant women and women with children, were released after 
weeks of detention. As of Decem ber 2008, at least 740 returnees were still detained in military 
detention facilities in Eritrea. See Human Rights Watch, Egypt: Stop Deporting Eritrean Asylum 
Seekers, 8 January 2009, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49670ba41e.html; and 
Amnesty International, Eritrean asylum-seekers face deportation from Egypt, 19 December 2008, 
available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49509c20c.html. 
189  Amnesty International, Eritrea: Fear of torture/Incommunicado detention/Arbitrary killings: 
Thousands of people held at Adi Abeto army prison , 9 November 2004, available at 
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR64/008/2004/en/dom-AFR640082004en.html. 
190  US Department of State, U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2003 
– Eritrea, 25 February 2004, available at http:/www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/403f57b010.html. 
191  Amnesty International, Eriteria: Fear of torture/incommunicad o detention/forcible return: Miskir 
Semerab Goitom, 29 November 2007, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AFR64/ 
010/2007/en. 
192  Amnesty International, Eritrea/Germany: Fear of tort ure or ill-treatment/incommunicado 
detention/forcible return , AFR 64/002/2008, 29 May 2008, available at 
http://amnesty.org/en/library/info/AFR64/002/2008/en. 
193  President Isaias Afwe rki publicly accused the CIA and othe r Western agencies of luring young 
people away from Eritrea in a plot to weaken a nation seen as a threat to U.S. interests in the region. 
See Jack Kimball and Andrew Cawthorne, Interview – Eritrean leader blames CIA plot for youth 
exodus, Reuters, 13 May 2008, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/ 
idUSL13745161. 
194 Proclamation No. 24/1992 issued to regulate the issuing of travel documents, entry and exit visa 
from Eritrea, and to control residence permits of foreigners in Eritrea , 1992, available at 
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b4e014.html, strictly prohibits departure from Eritrea 
without an exit visa (Article 12). Violation of the exit provisions can lead to sentencing upon 
conviction of up to five years imprisonment or a fine of up to 10,000 Bir (now ca. 15.000 Nakfa) or 
to both imprisonment and a fine (Article 29.2). 
 34

Government.195 Given the efficiency and reach of the State intelligence apparatus, 
there is a reasonable possibility that thos e in possession of exit visas obtained through 
bribery would be identified as having illegally left the country. 
In light of the above, UNHCR urges States to exercise caution when considering the 
return of individuals not found to be ref ugees under the criter ia of the 1951 and/or 
OAU Conventions following a determination of  their claims in fair and efficient 
refugee status determination procedures , including the right of appeal. UNHCR 
further advises against the return of Eritr ean asylum-seekers to countries they may 
have transited or in which they may have b een granted status, but from which there is 
a risk of refoulement196 or deportation. Should an individual demonstrate other needs 
for which a complementary form of protect ion would be appropriate, the needs and 
appropriate response should be assessed accordingly. 197 In this regard, States’ 
obligations under international human rights law remain unaffected. 
 
Division of International Protection Services 
UNHCR Headquarters 
Geneva 
April 2009 
                                                 
195  See US Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , above footnote 4. 
See also Awate.com, No Legal Exit; No Limit On Exodus , 25 September 2008, available at 
http://www.awate.com/portal/content/view/4965/3/. 
196  UNHCR, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations 
under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol , 26 January 
2007, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f17a1a4.html.   
197  The term “complementary forms of protection” is used in these Guidelines to refer to the range of 
mechanisms which have been adopt ed by States to complement the protection accorded under the 
1951 and/or OAU Conventions. 
 35