CAT/C/67/D/816/2017 looked for them, in which connection they could face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture or ill-treatment if removed to Egypt. 8.9 The Committee notes the complainants’ claims that the domestic authorities failed to provide them with fair proceedings in assessing their applications for asylum as the authorities did not translate two documents submitted by them in support of their claim that the male complainant had a business arrangement with a company owned by senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and by not conducting an oral hearing before the Migration Court in support of the said claim. The Committee notes, however, that the Migration Court did not question the fact that the male complainant had had such a business arrangement and that this was the reason for its denial of the request for translation of the documents. It further notes that the complainants were interviewed in the proceedings at first instance and were invited to review and submit written observations on the minutes of the conducted interviews. It also notes that the domestic asylum authorities examined all claims presented by the complainants in their assessment of their applications for asylum. The Committee therefore finds that the complainants have not substantiated their claim that they were denied fair proceedings in the State party or that the domestic proceedings were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the complainants have failed to substantiate their claim that their removal to Egypt could expose them to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainants’ removal to Egypt would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8