CAT/C/67/D/816/2017 6.2 The State party notes the complainants’ claims that the domestic authorities did not make a proper assessment of their case as they did not translate supporting documents submitted by them during the domestic proceedings. It emphasizes that in assessing the complainants’ cited need for international protection, the domestic authorities based their assessment on the oral and written information submitted by the complainants, as well as the evidence submitted by them. As regards the extracts from the Internet submitted by the male complainant during the national asylum process, the domestic authorities noted that these documents were not about him as an individual but merely described the general situation in Egypt. Thus, a translation of the documents was not considered to be necessary. As concerns the rest of the documents referred to by the complainants to substantiate that supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt may risk treatment constituting grounds for protection, the State party notes that this was not a circumstance that was questioned by the domestic migration authorities and there was thus no need to translate the documents submitted for this purpose. It further notes that the domestic authorities accepted that the male complainant had the business relations that he claimed to have had and that the company he was contracted to belonged to high-ranking representatives of the Brotherhood. Since these were facts that were not being questioned, there was no reason to translate documents submitted to substantiate this claim. The State party notes that the domestic authorities found that what had been stated during the asylum process could not be considered sufficient to conclude that, in view of the male complainant’s previous position, the Egyptian authorities would have any particular interest in him or his family or that, for the same reason, he had been attributed a political affiliation that would render the family in need of international protection. 6.3 The State party notes the complainants’ claim that their rights were violated as their request for a hearing before the Migration Court was denied by the Court. It notes that pursuant to the Aliens Act, the legal procedure in the migration courts and the Migration Court of Appeal is done in writing. Oral proceedings may be conducted if it can be assumed to be advantageous for the investigation or to promote a rapid resolution. The aim of the oral hearing is, however, to supplement the written proceedings. If the outcome of the case is dependent on the veracity of the information provided by an applicant, there are very limited reasons for not holding an oral hearing. The State party notes that in the complainants’ case, the Migration Court found that the complainants’ cited grounds for asylum could not be deemed sufficient to conclude that the complainants were in need of international protection if returned to Egypt; hence, an oral hearing was deemed unnecessary. 6.4 The State party further refers to a country report on Egypt according to which the Egyptian authorities are unlikely to have the capacity, capability or interest in seeking to target all persons associated with the Muslim Brotherhood given the size and variety of its membership and support base. 2 It notes that, according to the report, evidence does not establish that merely being a member or a supporter of the Brotherhood or being perceived to support the Brotherhood will place a person at risk of persecution or serious harm. 3 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the 2 3 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, “Country policy and information note: Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood”, 1 July 2017. Ibid. 5