A/HRC/32/47 regularly invoke treason and espionage. Treasonous behaviour appears to include conscientious objection to military service, practice of an unauthorized religion, applying for release from military service, attempting to escape military service, trying to leave the country, seeking information about the detention of a loved one, offending a high-ranking government or PFDJ official and having a family member accused of a perceived wrong. The Government has successfully stifled all forms of political dissent, and those who have spoken out in the past have generally disappeared, fled or been otherwise silenced. 72. Most witnesses told the commission that they had been arrested and detained without due process. They were not arrested on the basis of a warrant. They were not informed of the reasons for their detention. They were never charged or advised of procedural rights. They were never provided with legal assistance or an opportunity to contact their families; and, once in detention, they were never brought before judicial authorities or advised of the anticipated length of detention. This evidence was corroborated by former security officials who described their role in arbitrarily detaining Eritreans. 73. Courts do exist in Eritrea, and some observers have noted that community courts appear to address minor local disputes. The commission recalls, however, that, in its first report, it found that violations of the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings had been particularly blatant (A/HRC/29/42, para. 39). The commission’s concerns are particularly acute with regard to the Special Court of Eritrea, which was originally established to try those accused of corruption and embezzlement. The commission’s findings on judiciary were based on evidence provided by both victims and former judges. The commission therefore concludes that even those detainees convicted pursuant to judicial proceedings have been deprived of their liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law. 74. The evidence demonstrates that arrests and detentions in violation of fundamental rules of international law have been, and remain, central to an Eritrean State policy designed not only to discourage dissent but to suppress independent or critical thought, and to instil fear in the population, with the purpose of maintaining control over Eritreans in a manner inconsistent with international law. The commission concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Eritrean officials have committed the crime of imprisonment, a crime against humanity, in a persistent, widespread and systematic manner since May 1991. 3. Enforced disappearances 75. Article 7(2) of the Rome Statute prohibiting enforced disappearances reflects customary international law applicable throughout the period covered by the reports of the commission. 76. Almost all witnesses reported that those detained had been subjected to enforced disappearance. Many described the steps that they had taken to obtain information about the fate of their relatives, and they did so despite the risk to themselves: (a) they sought information from their immediate local authorities, and from personal contacts; (b) they contacted area medical facilities; (c) they knocked on the gates of each known detention centre in their region; and (d) some even contacted senior government officials. 77. Witnesses informed the commission that friends and family of disappeared persons were never able to obtain information officially. That some were able to obtain information unofficially, for example by bribing a prison guard or from released fellow detainees, does not absolve the State of its obligation to provide official information. 78. The commission previously concluded that the Government has imprisoned many Eritreans in violation of fundamental rules of international law since 1991. In most cases, the Government refused to provide information on the fate or whereabouts of those detained. In doing so, Eritrean officials intended to deprive victims of the protection of the 13