A/HRC/32/47 65. Like the victims of the crime of enslavement in Germany during the Second World War, in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime, and in the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s, the victims of the military/national service schemes in Eritrea are not bought and sold on an open market. Rather, the powers attaching to the right of ownership in Eritrea are revealed by (a) the uncertain legal basis for the national service programmes; (b) the arbitrary and open-ended duration of conscription, routinely for years beyond the 18 months provided for by the decree of 1995; (c) the involuntary nature of service beyond the 18 months provided for by law; (d) the use of forced labour, including domestic servitude, to benefit private, PFDJ-controlled and State-owned interests; (e) the limitations on freedom of movement; (f) the inhumane conditions, and the use of torture and sexual violence; (g) extreme coercive measures to deter escape; (h) punishment for alleged attempts to desert military service, without an administrative or judicial proceeding; (i) the limitations on all forms of religious observance; and (j) the catastrophic impact of lengthy conscription and conditions on freedom of religion, choice, association and family life. 66. Here, the commission again wishes to stress that compulsory military/national service is not necessarily a human rights violation or a crime against humanity. What distinguish military/national service programmes in Eritrea from those in other States are the apparent underlying purposes of the programmes and the manner in which they are implemented. 67. The Government has on many occasions stated that prolonged military/national service is necessitated by external threats, including the occupation by Ethiopia of Eritrean territory and United Nations sanctions. In the view of the commission, these do not justify the open-ended and arbitrary nature of the State’s military/national service programmes, nor do they explain the use of conscripts to carry out non-military work, including for State-owned and other enterprises. 68. The commission concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, within the context of military/national service programmes, Eritrean officials exercise powers attaching to the right of ownership over Eritrean citizens. It also determines that, despite the justifications for a military/national service programme advanced in 1995, the programmes today serve primarily to boost economic development, to profit State-endorsed enterprises and to maintain control over the Eritrean population in a manner inconsistent with international law. The commission therefore finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Eritrean officials have committed the crime of enslavement, a crime against humanity, in a persistent, widespread and systematic manner since no later than 2002. 2. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty 69. The international prohibition against imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law is reflected in article 7(1)(e) of the Rome Statute. The commission stresses that the right to liberty is not absolute and that individuals may be arrested in certain circumstances and conditions. It focuses primarily on the inordinate number of detentions without any form of legal authorization or proceeding. 70. The vast majority of witnesses informed the commission that they had been arrested and detained arbitrarily, many repeatedly, or had had friends or relatives who had been detained for periods ranging from months to years. 71. Arbitrary detention in Eritrea is routine and indiscriminate. Indeed, in its first report, the commission concluded that Eritreans were arrested for reasons arbitrary to such an extent that no one could possibly identify the law that might have been broken (A/HRC/29/42, para. 41). When referring to detained individuals, Eritrean officials 12