CAT/C/67/D/816/2017
question that supporters of the Brotherhood in Egypt can risk treatment constituting
grounds for international protection. It notes that the Migration Agency and the Migration
Court accepted the male complainant’s assertion that he worked as an engineer for a
company in the United Arab Emirates. It argues that the fact that his residence permit in the
United Arab Emirates ended in 2015 does not mean per se that he and his family would risk
treatment constituting grounds for protection in Egypt. It notes that no evidence has been
submitted to indicate that the residence and work permits in the United Arab Emirates were
withdrawn because the male complainant had connections to a company linked to the
Brotherhood. The State party further notes that the Migration Court did not question the
fact that the company with which the male complainant was contracted belonged to highranking representatives of the Brotherhood. The Migration Court found, however, that this
business agreement could not per se be regarded as an expression of support for the
Brotherhood, and it found that the complainants’ cited grounds for asylum were insufficient
to consider them to be in need of protection. The State party argues that it has therefore not
been substantiated that the Egyptian authorities would, on the basis of the male
complainant’s previous work, have any particular interest in him or his family, or that he
would be considered to be an opponent of the Egyptian authorities.
Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 31 January 2018, the complainants submitted their comments on the State
party’s observations. They maintain that the communication is admissible. They reiterate
their claim that the State party authorities failed to consider documents submitted by them
in support of their claims and failed to translate the said documents from Arabic to Swedish.
They argue that the State party authorities failed to make a proper assessment of the
family’s situation.
5.2
The complainants argue that the State party erred in concluding that the contractual
business agreements the male complainant had with a Muslim Brotherhood-owned
company could not be regarded as an expression of support for the Brotherhood. They note
that the male complainant’s relation to the Brotherhood is not purely of a business nature.
He supported the Brotherhood and its Government, as demonstrated by his involvement in
political projects for the development of Egypt with senior officials of the Brotherhood.
The complainants claim that the Egyptian authorities consider anyone who has links to the
Brotherhood to be a supporter of the group. They argue that the State party not only failed
to present a definition of who is a supporter of the Brotherhood, but also disregarded the
complainants’ definition of such a supporter.
5.3
The complainants reiterate their claim that the revocation of their residence permits
by the authorities of the United Arab Emirates was due to the male complainant’s links to
the Muslim Brotherhood. They argue that this was not stated in writing by the authorities in
order to avoid complaints.
5.4
The complainants refer to the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations
addressed to Egypt under its recent inquiry procedure on Egypt. 1 They note that the
Committee found that torture is systematically practised in Egypt by various State agencies,
particularly frequently following arbitrary arrests, that it is often carried out in order to
obtain a confession or to punish and threaten political dissidents and that perpetrators of
torture almost universally enjoy impunity. They argue that these concerns were disregarded
by the State party in its assessment of the human rights situation in Egypt.
State party’s additional observations
6.1
On 1 February 2019, the State party submitted its additional observations on
admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It refers to its observations of 5 September
2017 and reiterates its position that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for
failure to substantiate the claims for purposes of admissibility and, in any event, that the
complainants have failed to present an arguable case establishing that they run a foreseeable,
present, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Egypt.
1
4
A/72/44, paras. 58–71.