A/HRC/32/47 17. To evaluate the submissions, the commission adopted a methodology to ensure that a statistically representative sample of more than 500 individuals from 16 countries would be contacted about their contributions. 18. Given the large number of group letters and petitions and the similar contents of most of the submissions, the commission has concluded that the campaign critical of its first report was well organized. While the commission is satisfied that a significant number of the letters were essentially voluntary, very few of those contacted had actually read the report, and many had been provided with sensationalized information about the commission’s findings. 19. The commission found that the most fervent critics of its findings were Eritreans who had left the country before or immediately after 1991. A substantial number of correspondents stated that they had written primarily to voice their opposition to United Nations sanctions. These submissions were therefore largely based on either an erroneous understanding or deliberate misinformation about the United Nations sanctions regime. There appeared to be significant misinformation on other issues as well; for example, one correspondent stated that he had written to counter the commission’s finding that “women were being raped on every Eritrean street corner”. 20. Among the submissions, there were some letters that had been submitted involuntarily, namely, either because the author had been coerced or the letter had been submitted without the knowledge of the signatory. In one country, a significant number of contributors stated that they had not appended their names to a petition and that their signatures had therefore been forged. Of greatest concern were those witnesses in States where Eritreans tend to be guest workers rather than refugees or dual nationals, who informed the commission that Eritrean officials had made it known that Eritreans who did not write to the commission supporting the Government would not have their passports renewed. Without a valid passport, Eritrean workers would not have their visas renewed. 21. The commission was able to identify a number of common themes in the correspondence, including the commission’s failure to visit Eritrea; the detrimental impact of United Nations sanctions on the humanitarian situation in Eritrea; that there was no rape in Eritrea; the failure of the commission to ensure implementation of the decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission on Badme; that indefinite military conscription in Eritrea was justified by the threat from Ethiopia; that there was no discrimination against women; the history of inter-ethnic and interreligious harmony in Eritrea; that there was no shoot-to-kill policy at Eritrean borders; that education and health care were free in Eritrea, unlike in other States; and that Eritrea had made progress on the Millennium Development Goals. 22. The commission notes that most writers stated that they visited Eritrea only occasionally. Many stressed the general sense of calm and order in Asmara. It is important to note, however, that the types of gross human rights violations in Eritrea documented by the commission in its first report are not committed on the streets of Asmara, but rather behind the walls of detention facilities and in military training camps. Torture and rape are not normally perpetrated in the open; the commission nonetheless gathered a large amount of corroborated evidence and observed the physical and emotional scars of such violence in people who have fled the country. The façade of calm and normality that is apparent to the occasional visitor to the country, and others confined to sections of the capital, belies the consistent patterns of serious human rights violations. After careful review, the commission concludes that the submissions do not undermine the findings described in its first report. 5