Eritrea's Shoot-to-Kill Border Policy: Leaving Without Permission

Last updated: 5 October 2026

Photo: Terraced Hillsides - David Stanley

Eritrea treats leaving the country without government permission as a crime. The Eritrea border policy includes standing shoot-to-kill orders for border guards. Armed soldiers patrol the borders with Ethiopia and Sudan, and they are instructed to fire on anyone trying to cross. Despite this deadly risk, thousands of Eritreans attempt to leave every year. They do this because life inside Eritrea — with its indefinite military conscription, political repression, and religious persecution — leaves them no other choice. This report examines the Eritrea border policy in detail and explains its importance for asylum claims.

The information in this report comes from UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea, Amnesty International, and testimony from Eritrean refugees. For a broader overview of conditions in the country, see our Eritrea country report.

Legal Framework: The Exit Visa System

The legal basis for the Eritrea border policy is Proclamation 24/1992. This law criminalizes leaving Eritrea without an exit visa. An exit visa is a document that gives you permission to leave the country. In most countries, citizens can leave freely. In Eritrea, the government decides who can go and who must stay.

Exit visas are almost impossible to get for most Eritreans. The government only issues them to men over 54 years old, women over 47 years old, and people with special government permission. In practice, this means that all men and women of national service age — roughly 18 to 50 — cannot legally leave the country. Even older people must go through a long and uncertain process. Business people, government officials on duty, and a small number of students may receive exit visas, but these are given at the discretion of the authorities.[1]

Anyone who leaves without an exit visa commits a crime under Eritrean law. The penalties are severe. If caught before reaching the border, a person faces imprisonment, torture, and forced return to national service. If caught after leaving and forcibly returned, the punishment is even worse: detention in military prisons, extended service, and torture. Proclamation 24/1992 effectively turns the entire population into prisoners within their own country.[2]

Shoot-to-Kill: Documented Evidence

The most extreme element of the Eritrea border policy is the shoot-to-kill order. Border guards are instructed to open fire on anyone trying to cross without permission. This is not a secret policy — it is well known to all Eritreans and has been documented by multiple international organizations. The borders with Ethiopia and Sudan are the main exit routes, and both are heavily militarized with armed patrols, watchtowers, and minefields in some areas.[3]

UNHCR has documented numerous cases of people being shot and killed while trying to cross the border. Human Rights Watch has published testimony from witnesses and survivors. The UN Commission of Inquiry heard detailed evidence from former border guards who confirmed they had received orders to shoot on sight. Some former guards testified that they were told they would face severe punishment themselves if they allowed anyone to cross.[4]

Eritreans face being shot at the border, and if they survive and are caught, they face arrest, torture and forced conscription or re-conscription into national service. The very act of trying to leave the country puts people's lives at risk.
UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Eritrean Asylum-Seekers, 2011

The shoot-to-kill policy is enforced unevenly. Some border areas are more heavily guarded than others. Smugglers know the patrol patterns and sometimes bribe guards to look the other way. However, the risk remains extremely high. People are killed at the border regularly. The exact number of deaths is unknown because the Eritrean government does not publish any data, and independent monitoring is impossible inside the country.

Who Is Affected

The Eritrea border policy affects almost the entire population. Anyone of national service age — effectively all adults under 50 — cannot legally leave. However, the restriction goes even further than that. Children are also at risk. The government conducts age assessments to identify children who are approaching conscription age. Some reports indicate that children as young as 11 or 12 have been detained near the border on suspicion that they were trying to leave before reaching conscription age.[5]

Women face specific dangers when trying to cross. Female refugees report high rates of sexual violence during border crossings. Armed smugglers, border guards, and bandits all pose threats. Many women are raped during the journey. Despite these dangers, women continue to flee because the conditions inside Eritrea — including sexual violence during national service — are equally or more dangerous.

Documented Border Shootings and Incidents

The true scale of border violence is impossible to measure accurately. Eritrea does not allow independent journalists, human rights monitors, or UN investigators into the country. All data comes from refugee testimony, satellite imagery, and reports from neighbouring countries. However, the consistency of witness accounts across thousands of interviews leaves no doubt that the shoot-to-kill policy is real and regularly enforced.[6]

Consequences of Illegal Departure

If Caught Before the Border

People who are caught trying to leave before they reach the border face immediate arrest. They are taken to military detention centres where they are beaten and tortured. The standard punishment includes being tied in the "helicopter" position for extended periods, beatings with sticks and rifle butts, and confinement in underground cells or metal shipping containers. After punishment, they are sent back to their national service units or assigned to harsher duties. The duration of their service is extended as additional punishment.[7]

If Returned After Leaving

The consequences are even worse for people who successfully left Eritrea but are later forcibly returned. The government treats these individuals as traitors and deserters. Upon arrival, they are detained at military facilities such as Adi Abeto prison near Asmara or Adi Quala military prison. They face prolonged interrogation, torture, and indefinite detention. Some are held in underground cells for months or years. There is no judicial process — no charges, no trial, no lawyer.

Reports from forced deportations from Israel (2018) and from Sudan and Egypt document what happens to returned Eritreans. People deported from Israel under "voluntary departure" agreements were detained on arrival at Asmara airport. They were taken to military prisons and their families were not informed of their location. Some were re-conscripted into military units deployed to conflict zones.[8]

Family Punishment

The Eritrea border policy does not only punish the person who leaves. It also punishes their family. This is one of the most cruel aspects of the system. When a person leaves Eritrea illegally, the authorities go to the family home. Parents are held responsible for their children's actions, even if their children are adults.

The standard punishment for families includes a fine of 50,000 Eritrean Nakfa. This is about $3,300 at the official exchange rate. In a country where the average monthly salary is about $30, this fine is impossible for most families to pay. If they cannot pay, the parents can be detained until the fine is paid or until the person who left returns. The government also confiscates property, including houses and farmland. In some cases, elderly parents have been forced to take their child's place in national service.[9]

This collective punishment system has a dual purpose. First, it deters people from leaving by making them afraid of what will happen to their families. Second, it turns families into enforcers of the system — parents feel pressure to stop their children from trying to leave. The UN Commission of Inquiry found that family punishment is systematic and widespread.

Smuggling Routes Out of Eritrea

Despite the dangers, thousands of Eritreans leave every year. Most use smugglers to cross the border. The main routes are through Ethiopia and Sudan. From Ethiopia, people may travel south to Kenya or north to Sudan. From Sudan, the main routes lead to Libya and then across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe, or through Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula towards Israel (although Israel largely closed this route after 2013).[10]

The journey is extremely dangerous at every stage. In Sudan and Libya, Eritrean refugees are targeted by criminal gangs who kidnap them for ransom. Families are contacted and forced to pay thousands of dollars for their relatives' release. Those who cannot pay face torture, forced labour, or death. Thousands of Eritreans have died crossing the Mediterranean Sea. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has recorded thousands of deaths on this route since 2014. Despite all these dangers, people keep leaving because the conditions inside Eritrea are unbearable.

Sur Place Claims: Leaving Creates Its Own Risk

The Eritrea border policy has a direct and important consequence for asylum law. Because leaving Eritrea without permission is a crime, the very act of departing creates a risk of persecution upon return. This is known as a "sur place" claim — a claim for asylum based on actions taken after leaving the home country. In the case of Eritreans, the action is simply having left.

This principle is well established in case law. In the UK, the country guidance case MST and Others (national service — risk categories) Eritrea CG [2008] UKAIT 00002 confirmed that Eritreans who left illegally face a real risk of serious harm upon return. The tribunal found that returned failed asylum seekers would be subjected to detention, torture, and forced conscription because they would be treated as having deserted from national service and having committed the crime of illegal departure.[11]

UNHCR also recognizes this principle. Its eligibility guidelines for Eritrean asylum seekers state that the act of leaving Eritrea without permission is itself a ground for international protection, because the punishment for illegal departure is disproportionate and amounts to persecution. This means that virtually all Eritreans who have left the country and who are of national service age have a strong basis for an asylum claim, regardless of whether they have other grounds for protection.

Implications for Asylum Claims

The Eritrea border policy is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in Eritrean asylum cases. Decision-makers should consider several key points. First, the exit visa system makes it impossible for most Eritreans to leave legally. Anyone of national service age who is outside Eritrea has almost certainly left illegally. Second, the shoot-to-kill policy means that the government treats departure as such a serious offence that it is willing to kill to prevent it.[12]

Third, the consequences of return — detention, torture, re-conscription — are severe and well documented. Fourth, family punishment means that the person's relatives inside Eritrea may already be suffering as a result of their departure. Fifth, the sur place principle means that even a person who had no initial reason to flee now faces persecution simply because they left. Taken together, these factors create an extremely strong case for international protection for virtually all Eritrean nationals who are outside the country without government permission.

Conclusion

The Eritrea border policy transforms the entire country into a prison. Citizens cannot leave without risking their lives. Those who make it out face permanent exile — return means detention, torture, and re-conscription. Their families suffer punishment for their departure. This policy, combined with indefinite conscription and total political repression, explains why Eritrea produces one of the highest rates of refugees per capita in the world. For asylum decision-makers and legal practitioners, the evidence is clear: the Eritrea border policy alone provides strong grounds for international protection.