Complainant’s response On 31 October 2006, the complainant’s counsel responded to the State party’s submission. He stated that he had had a meeting with the Swedish Ambassador on 24 January 2006. During this meeting, counsel emphasized that it was essential that the embassy continue their visits as regularly as it has been doing. According to information available to counsel, the post-surgery treatment for his back has been inadequate and his recovery unsatisfactory. The Embassy promised to continue to emphasize the importance of necessary medical care within the diplomatic framework. However, it was reluctant to make a request to the Egyptian Government for telephone contact between Mr. Agiza and his wife and children who remain in Sweden as refugees. The Ambassador was unclear as to whether he would request the complainant’s retrial. Counsel provided arguments as to why his trial in April 2004 was unfair and also requested that the prohibition on the complainant returning to Sweden be lifted, in the event that he is released from prison at some stage in the future. According to the Ambassador, this is up to the Migration Board. Counsel requested the State party to consider having a retrial in Sweden or to allow him to complete his imprisonment there (as suggested by the Special Rapporteur on Torture) but the State party responded that no such steps are possible. In addition, requests for compensation ex gratia have been refused and it was suggested that a formal claim should be lodged under the Compensation Act. This has been done. According to counsel, although the monitoring aspect of the State party’s efforts is satisfactory its efforts as a whole are said to be inadequate with respect to the request for contact with his family in Sweden, a retrial etc. Case 279/2005, C.T. and K.M. Nationality and country of removal if applicable Rwandan, Rwanda Views adopted on 17 November 2006 Issues and violations found Removal - article 3 130