Coalition

of Eritrean Canadian
Communities and Organizations
nd
346 Hargrave Street, 2 floor
Winnipeg, MB, Manitoba, Canada
R3B 2J9
Email:communications@eritreacanada.org
Phone: 204-794-4981

Coalition of Eritrean Canadian Communities and Organizations

Submission to the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea
(COI or commission)

15 January 2015

The Coalition of Eritrean Canadian Communities and Organizations (CECCO) is a
national body that represents the interests of seven Eritrean community associations in Canada.
We serve over 30,000 Eritreans who reside in cities across the country. Since 2013, CECCO has
researched and written extensively on the current situation in Eritrea. In 2014, we were invited
to lend our expertise before the Canadian Parliamentary Subcommittee on International Human
Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Upholding human rights is a challenge faced by all member states of the UN and to date no
country to our knowledge, including Canada, has succeeded in fully honouring its international
obligations as set out in the various conventions and treaties it has signed. For that reason, we
view the practice of specific-nation inquiries like this one with a healthy dose of scepticism. The
way forward in the international pursuit of human rights ought to be through encouragement
and mutual criticism instead of finger-wagging or naming-and-shaming developing nations.

There are two ironies that exist within the commissions method of work, and in a sense, will be
the lasting legacy when future generations look back on its place in Eritrean history. The first
part is its refusal to seek out Eritreans in the Diaspora whose testimonies might contradict the
hypothesis of widespread human rights violations in Eritrea. The commission identified the
Eritrean governments lack of engagement as a significant investigative challenge, yet it
probably did not appreciate the irony of its wordstotally shutting out groups like ours from
the fact-finding process in favour of seeking out and assigning weight to evidence that
confirmed the existence of human rights violations.

That is the first part of the COIs legacy, and that is what Eritreans will remember it for.

The second part will be its misuse of anonymous interviews to determine the existence of
widespread human rights violations. Ordinarily, results from a study in which nearly all of the
queried testimonies were anonymous would be considered with great suspicion. Moreover,
without direct access to Eritrea or the use of reliable statistical data, the COI has failed to
provide the world with accurate information necessary to fulfill its own mandate under HRC
resolution 26/24. In this case however, the findings of the report are being treated as both
known and proven. They are being used not only to castigate Eritrea but also to propose

criminal prosecution before the ICC. Our communities, on the other hand, engaged in open
public discussions with refugees and provided verifiable testimonies. We did this because we
wanted a transparent way of gathering evidence worthy of presenting to the international
community. It should be recognized that anonymous interviews are personal in nature. When
properly recounted, they may shed light on the existence of abuses in particular circumstance,
but they can never prove systematic and widespread violations. Anecdotal evidence does not
constitute evidence that is substantive enough to make positive inferences about widespread
human rights violations. When dealing with widespread systemic abuses, one should investigate
using reliable data, including statistical information, in such areas as demographics,
development, the economy and the legal system.

Nevertheless, we scrutinized the hundreds of pages of evidence in the commissions report and
found serious incongruities between the findings and the reality on the ground, as observed by
members of our communities who travel back and forth to Eritrea in growing numbers each
year. On the issue of human rights violations, we found that this is not a country with severe
abuses in terms of the physical integrity of persons. For young Eritreans, the economic
challenges in the country as well as the fatigue from prolonged military service due to Ethiopias
continued occupation of sovereign Eritrean territory may have contributed to them leaving in
favour of resource-rich countries with welcoming asylum policies like the U.S and EU members
states. In a recent report issued by the British Home Office, it was determined that defectors
from the Eritrean army did not, in fact, face life-threatening danger in Eritrea and would be
inadmissible for refugee status in other countries. The report also claims that those who leave
the country illegally were not at risk upon return to their homeland provided they pay the 2%
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation tax. On the issue of military service, we believe that resolving
the long-standing occupation of Eritrea`s sovereign territory by Ethiopia, in violation of
international law, would have the effect of accelerating the demobilization of national service
conscripts and curb the volume of individuals risking their lives to travel to other countries.

When thinking about human rights, we assessed the situation in Eritrea by taking into account a
broad range of rights including: economic, social, civil, political, and cultural. Since Eritreas
independence, we have witnessed a genuine attempt to increase social inclusion of parts of the
population that had been severely excluded prior to 1991. When visiting the country, we also
observed the increase in political participation mechanismssuch as locally based community
councils. As Canadians we pride ourselves on our social democratic institutions such as our
universal health care system. For that reason, we applaud the emphasis Eritrea has made to
focus on certain social and economic rightssuch as lowering infant mortality rates and
eradicating poverty. In other areas Eritrea has made remarkable progress where other African
countries have made relatively few.

Despite its successes, there are still challenges. These challenges are not unique to Eritrea and
are shared by other developing countries that have to strengthen institutions and educate the
public about their civil rights.

On the political side allegations have been made by the COI around freedom of expression and
political rights, including legislative elections and other kinds of participation. The commissions
report does not examine at much length the context and circumstances surrounding some of
these challenges beyond the prima facie breach of human rights. It doesnt give much weight for
example, to the role of US foreign policy in the Horn of Africa and the brutal war of attrition

fought from 1998-2000 with Ethiopia and its resulting consequences. For more than decade
after the war Ethiopia has continued its illegal occupation and the threats of military
intervention. In wartime, nations face a paradox between national security and the protection
of human rights. The commission however dismisses this argument when made by Eritrea, as
both facile and an excuse for the implementation of repressive practices. Eritreas government
knows that an indeterminate state of emergency is not sustainable, and that it must find newer
ways of dealing with threats from countries and groups that endanger its sovereignty. We
believe that resolving the long-standing occupation of Eritrea`s sovereign territory by Ethiopia
would have the effect of accelerating the demobilization of national service conscripts and set
Eritrean back on its original path of nation building and institutional development. Contrary to
the COI, we believe a safe and secure Eritrea, free from undesired intervention, would provide a
robustly democratic and prosperous country and contribute to a stable and peaceful Horn of
Africa. In the midst of these challenges there is progress. Despite having a court system that is
still developing the institutional capacity and human recourses necessary to oversee the
effective administration of justice, we recently saw Eritrea take a positive step this year by
revising its Civil and Penal Codes.

The methodology and standard of proof adopted by the commission were also of concern to us.
In its report the commission stated that, the adopted standard of proof does not imply that on
the basis of the information gathered, such conclusions should be the only reasonable one. In
light of our work with refugees here in Canada and our experience travelling back and forth to
Eritrea, we believe that all reasonable conclusions about the evolving human rights situation in
Eritrea ought to have been considered and applied under a higher threshold than the
reasonable grounds to believe standard of proof of the COI methodology which draws
conclusions relating to only one particular set of reported incidents.

The manner of selecting interviewees to study human rights in Eritrea also raises questions
about the impartiality and objectivity of the COI report. The reliance on vulnerable asylum
seekers in most of these studies and is one such example. We know first-hand from working
with refugees that the relatively welcoming asylum policies of resource-rich countries like U.S
and EU member states are an important factor in the exodus of Eritrean youth from their native
homeland. The exodus is driven not only by economic aspirations of the youth but also by their
discontent with the length of their individual military service and easy access to criminal
smuggling networks. That said, the high threshold for becoming a convention refugee in these
countries require Eritreans to demonstrate an objective unwillingness to return to their
homeland because of a well-founded fear of persecution. The asylum-seekers are therefore
aware of what journalists and immigration officers want to hear in order to improve their
chances of receiving asylum. Encouraging them to participate in a study on human rights abuses
that could have a material impact on their future asylum aspirations places them in a morally
untenable position and pressures them to overemphasize the persecutory and tragic accounts
of their lives in Eritrea. Given its continued hostility and the public campaign to destabilize the
government in Asmara, we also express our concerns with the commissions decision to conduct
confidential interview with migrs residing in refugee camps under the immediate supervision
of the Ethiopian armed forces.


As community leaders and advocates we urge the Human Rights Committee to set aside the
findings of the COI on the grounds that it lacks the necessary evidentiary merit to fulfill its own
mandate. As ordinary Eritreans we also wish to express our frustration with what can only be

described as a politically motivated investigation fuelled by a small but loud group that wish to
deepen mistrust between Eritrea and the International community. Lastly, we ask that
organizations like ours be given the opportunity to share our findings with you in the future as a
sign of good faith and procedural fairness. We hope that this information and context can
provide the foundation for a better understanding of Eritrea. As individuals who are deeply
committed to the stable growth and development of human rights, we ask that you give our
concern, and the concern of thousands of Eritreans around the world, your utmost attention.

Lambros Kyriakakos
Chairman
Coalition of Eritrean Canadian
Communities and Organizations

January 15, 2016