The exchange below between an interviewer from Swedish Radio’s Ekot program and Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, chief legal adviser to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is instructive. The interviewer begins by asking Ehrenkrona about the allegations of mistreatment put forward by Ahmed Agiza to Swedish authorities at the first monitoring visit in January 2002. It appears that the Swedish authorities had fears that if they communicated allegations of mistreatment to United Nations bodies, including the Committee against Torture, they would put the men at even greater risk and possibly damage diplomatic relations with the Egyptians. The original Swedish is included for verification purposes against the English translation (E is for Ehrenkrona, I is for Interviewer): [Rättschef Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona förklarar hur tankegångarna gick. Director-General for Legal Affairs Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona explains what the train of thought was.] E: Om man sprider den typen av uppgifter så bedömdes det att de också kunna skada honom själv och dessutom skada förhållandet till Egypten. Det handlade helt enkelt om att Agiza fortfarande var under utredning och om det då spreds obekräftade uppgifter om att han skulle ha sagt att han hade blivit torterad eller utsatt för omänsklig behandling så kunde det vara negativt för honom själv. E: It was thought that if one spreads information of this kind then it might not only cause damage to him but in addition cause damage to the relationship with Egypt. It was quite simply about Agiza still being under investigation and that if unconfirmed information about him having said that he had been tortured or exposed to inhuman treatment was spread, then it could be negative for him. I: Varför skulle det vara negativt för honom själv? I: Why would it be negative for him? E: Därför att man kunde inte veta hur det skulle hanteras av den egyptiska polisen. E: Because one could not know how this would be handled by the Egyptian police. I: Varför inte då? I: Why is that? E: Det kunde man inte veta i den situationen. Det finns alltid en risk och och det fanns ingen anledning att utsätta en person för den risken. E: One could not know in that situation. There is always a risk and there was no reason to expose a person to that risk. 65 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH VOL. 17 NO. 4(D)