CAT/C/67/D/816/2017
their followers. In that regard, the complainants recall that the Brotherhood was considered
a terrorist organization under the previous regime of President Mubarak.
2.7
The complainants further argue that the decision to deport them to Egypt violated
their right to a fair procedure as the procedures were in contradiction with domestic
legislation, namely the Aliens Act (2005), the Swedish Language Act (2009) and the
Administrative Procedures Act (1986), as well as with the European Parliament and
Council Directive No. 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011. The complainants note that they
submitted supporting documents to the Migration Agency which substantiated their support
of the Muslim Brotherhood-led Government. They also submitted country reports about the
human rights situation in Egypt following the military coup in 2013. The complainants
claim that some of those documents were not translated from Arabic while other documents
were not considered by the Agency.
2.8
The complainants further note that they requested that an oral hearing be held before
the Migration Court so that they could demonstrate the failures of the Migration Agency in
processing their application for asylum. This request was denied. The complainants argue
that the denial was not justified and violated article 5 of the Swedish Aliens Act.
2.9
The complainants also argue that the Migration Agency failed to undertake a correct
assessment of the situation in Egypt and to study the many country reports available which
provided detailed information on the human rights violations occurring in Egypt. It only
referred partially to two reports dated January 2015 and July 2016, despite the availability
of more comprehensive and recent reports. They claim that the State party authorities did
not consider the consistent pattern of flagrant and mass violations of human rights in Egypt.
The complaint
3.
The complainants claim that if they are deported to Egypt they would face a real,
foreseeable and personal risk of being detained, tortured and killed by the Egyptian
authorities, as perceived members and supporters of former President Morsi and of the
Muslim Brotherhood.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 5 September 2017, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility
and the merits of the communication. It submits that the communication should be declared
inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claims for purposes of admissibility.
4.2
The State party notes that the female complainant arrived in Sweden on 23 July
2015 with her children and that they applied for asylum on 24 July 2015. The male
complainant arrived in Sweden on 24 October 2015 and applied for asylum on 29 October
2015. The Migration Agency rejected the complainants’ applications on 5 August 2016.
4.3
The Migration Agency held two interviews with the complainants during the asylum
procedure. Through their public counsel, the complainants were invited to review and
submit written observations on the minutes of the conducted interviews and to make written
submissions thereon. The State party argues that the complainants therefore have had
opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of their claims and
to argue their case, orally as well as in writing, before the Migration Agency and in writing
before the Migration Court. It submits that the State party authorities conducted a thorough
examination of the complainants’ case and based the assessments of the complainants’ cited
need for protection on their oral accounts, as well as the evidence cited by them. It submits
that there is no reason to conclude that the rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of
the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
4.4
The State party notes that the complainants have stated that due to the male
complainant’s business-related contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood when he worked in
the United Arab Emirates, the Egyptian authorities would consider him to be an opponent
of the regime and that therefore all of the complainants risk being subjected to treatment in
violation of article 3 of the Convention if returned to Egypt. The State party notes that,
according to country of origin information, many high-ranking leaders of the Brotherhood
have been arrested and supporters have been imprisoned. It notes that it does not therefore
3