CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juillet 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 22 July 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 41282/16 M.O. against Switzerland lodged on 13 July 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicant is an Eritrean national, who was born in 1990. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He is represented before the Court by Mr   Schuler and Ms Stettler, lawyers practising in Zürich.   2.     The applicant grew up in Eritrea and left the country in 2013. The applicant’s asylum request in Switzerland was denied by the State Secretariat for Migration ( Staatssekretariat für Migration ), which in addition ordered the applicant’s departure from Switzerland. The applicant was also informed that if he would not leave Switzerland voluntarily, he could be detained and forcibly returned to his home country. COMPLAINTS 3.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he would be subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 when returned to Eritrea. He believes, in particular, that he would be arrested upon his return and subsequently detained, tortured and interrogated by the Eritrean secret service or police. 4.     The applicant further invokes Article 4 of the Convention, because after a possible detention he would also be returned to an indefinite military service in Eritrea, which has to be equated to slavery/forced labour.   QUESTIONS 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he would be deported to Eritrea?   2.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to servitude and/or forced labour in the Eritrean military in breach of Article 4 of the Convention if he would be deported to Eritrea?