Return Risk Assessment: Eritrea (2026) — Detention, Torture, Re-Conscription

Last updated: 16 September 2026

Photo: Eritrea - Government building, Asmara - CharlesFred

The Eritrea return risk is among the highest in the world. Virtually every Eritrean who returns — whether voluntarily or by force — faces detention, torture, and re-conscription into indefinite military service. UNHCR maintains a non-return advisory for Eritrea, meaning the agency recommends that no country should send Eritreans back. This assessment examines the specific risks faced by different categories of returnees. It is written for asylum decision-makers, legal representatives, and expert witnesses working on Eritrean cases.

The evidence in this report is drawn from UNHCR, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UK Home Office country information, and case law from the UK Upper Tribunal. For a comprehensive overview of conditions in the country, see our Eritrea country report.

Overview of Current Conditions

Eritrea remains one of the most repressive countries on earth. Nothing has changed since the 2018 peace agreement with Ethiopia. The government still forces citizens into indefinite national service. It still detains people without charge. It still tortures detainees. It still controls all media, bans most religions, and prevents people from leaving. The state is the main source of harm for its own citizens. There is no independent judiciary, no free press, and no civil society. For anyone considering the Eritrea return risk, the starting point must be this: the state itself is the persecutor.[1]

The Tigray conflict (2020-2022) made conditions worse. Eritrean troops deployed in northern Ethiopia committed serious atrocities. The conflict drained state resources and increased demands on conscripts. Reports from 2024-2025 indicate that military roundups for conscription have intensified. Young people are being swept up in street raids. This means the risk of forced conscription upon return is higher than ever.

UNHCR Position

UNHCR has maintained a clear non-return advisory for Eritrea since at least 2011. The agency considers that virtually all Eritreans who have left the country are in need of international protection. UNHCR's eligibility guidelines identify several categories of people at risk, but in practice the guidelines cover almost everyone. UNHCR advises that no one should be forcibly returned to Eritrea because of the pervasive risk of serious harm.[2]

UNHCR considers that persons originating from Eritrea who have left the country illegally or who have evaded or deserted from national service are in need of international protection under the 1951 Convention or on the basis of complementary forms of protection.
UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Eritrea, 2011

This position has not changed. UNHCR has reaffirmed it in subsequent statements and operational guidance through 2025. No major international organization has assessed Eritrea as safe for return. To learn more about human rights standards that apply, see our resources.

Categories at Risk

The Eritrea return risk applies to virtually everyone. However, it is useful to identify specific categories because asylum decision-makers need to assess individual risk. The table below sets out the main categories and their risk levels.

As the table shows, the Eritrea return risk is VERY HIGH for nearly all categories. There is no group of returning Eritreans that can be considered safe. Even people who left Eritrea legally (a very small number) face the risk of being pressed into national service upon return or being interrogated about their activities abroad.[3]

Documented Harm Upon Return

Evidence of what happens to returned Eritreans comes from several sources. The most important are the forced deportations from Israel in 2018. Under a "voluntary departure" programme (which was widely criticized as coercive), Israel sent Eritrean asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda. Some were later returned to Eritrea through third countries. Reports from those who were able to communicate afterwards described immediate detention on arrival at Asmara airport, followed by transport to military prisons.[4]

The main detention facilities for returned Eritreans include Adi Abeto military prison (near Asmara), Adi Quala military camp (in the south), and the network of military prisons across the country. Conditions in these facilities are life-threatening. Detainees are held in underground cells, metal shipping containers, and overcrowded rooms. Torture is routine and systematic.

Common forms of torture documented by the UN Commission of Inquiry include:

• The "helicopter" position — hands and feet tied together behind the back, often for days
• The "Jesus Christ" position — tied to a tree with arms outstretched
• Beating with sticks, metal rods, and rifle butts
• Confinement in metal shipping containers in extreme heat (temperatures exceeding 45 degrees Celsius)
• Denial of food, water, and medical care
• Sexual violence against women detainees

After the initial punishment, returned Eritreans are re-conscripted into national service. They may be assigned to the harshest units or deployed to conflict zones. There is no time limit on their service. Some are held in detention indefinitely without ever being re-assigned to a unit. The decision depends entirely on the mood and judgment of individual military commanders.[5]

State Capacity to Protect

The state's capacity to protect returnees from harm is zero. This is because the state itself is the source of the harm. The Eritrean government controls all security forces, all courts, and all institutions. There are no independent bodies that could protect a returning citizen. The police, the military, and the intelligence services all work together under the direction of President Isaias Afwerki. There is no separation of powers and no rule of law.[6]

In asylum law, decision-makers must consider whether the state can provide protection against the feared harm. In the case of Eritrea, this question has a simple answer: the state cannot protect because the state is the persecutor. There is no possibility of meaningful state protection for any returnee.

Internal Relocation: Not Available

Internal relocation — the idea that a person could move to a different part of the country to avoid harm — is not possible in Eritrea. The entire country is controlled by a single government. There is no federal system, no autonomous regions, and no areas outside state control. Internal movement requires permits. Anyone found without proper documentation faces detention. The security services operate across the entire country.[7]

This is a crucial point for asylum decision-makers. In many countries, internal relocation is considered as an alternative to international protection. In Eritrea, it is not a viable option. The UK Upper Tribunal confirmed this in MST and Others, finding that there is no part of Eritrea where a person can live free from the reach of the security services. For guidance on how to build an asylum case around this point, see our resources.

Eritrean Asylum Grant Rates in Europe

The high grant rates reflect the international community's recognition that the Eritrea return risk is extreme. Decision-makers across Europe consistently find that Eritrean asylum seekers qualify for international protection. Many receive full refugee status. Others receive subsidiary or humanitarian protection. The refusal rate is low, and many refusals are overturned on appeal.[8]

Key UK Case Law

The leading UK case on Eritrean asylum claims is MST and Others (national service — risk categories) Eritrea CG [2008] UKAIT 00002. This country guidance case established several important principles that remain broadly applicable today. The tribunal found that Eritreans who have left the country illegally, or who have evaded or deserted from national service, face a real risk of persecution upon return. The tribunal also found that the conditions of national service amount to serious harm, that failed asylum seekers returned to Eritrea would face detention and re-conscription, and that internal relocation is not available.[9]

In assessing the Eritrea return risk, this case remains the key reference point for UK decision-makers. Although it dates from 2008, conditions in Eritrea have not improved since then. If anything, the Tigray conflict and increased military roundups have made the situation worse. Subsequent UK Home Office country policy and information notes have confirmed that the core findings of MST and Others remain valid.

Conclusion: VERY HIGH Return Risk

The Eritrea return risk assessment for 2026 is clear: the risk is VERY HIGH for virtually all categories of returnees. The state is the persecutor. It detains, tortures, and forcibly conscripts returnees. There is no state protection. Internal relocation is impossible. UNHCR advises against all returns. European asylum grant rates consistently exceed 80%. The leading UK case law confirms that returned Eritreans face serious harm.

For asylum decision-makers and legal representatives, the evidence supports a strong presumption against return. Every case must be assessed individually, but the baseline risk for any Eritrean who left the country without permission is extremely high. Forced return to Eritrea would constitute a violation of non-refoulement obligations and Article 3 ECHR. The Eritrea return risk assessment remains one of the most clearly documented in international protection law.