CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 of the Egyptian police committing abuse and the general picture was that there could be instances of torture in Egypt. It stated, however, that this information did not alter the assessment of what individual risks the complainants could face if they were to return. 2.19 The oral hearing in the Migration Court was held on 27 January 2009. The first, second, third and fourth complainants were present together with their counsel. The Court noted that the family members had stated that certain information was covered by secrecy between them and the complainants were examined separately. Counsel submitted a copy of a medical certificate concerning the fourth complainant from the Children and Young Persons’ Clinic in Skelleftea, dated 18 December 2008. The certificate stated that the fourth complainant was treated for hyperthyroidism and needed an operation. Counsel also submitted a certificate concerning the third complainant dated 7 November 2008 and issued by a psychotherapist working at the Red Cross Centre for Victims of War and Torture. According to the certificate, the third complainant had been in touch with the psychotherapist since 18 October 2007. The third complainant had described the abuse he was subjected to by the Egyptian security police when he was studying at the University of Cairo in 2004–2007. The bulk of the certificate consisted of the third complainant’s description of the abuse and a statement that he had contacted an Egyptian lawyer to seek redress. The certificate also stated that psychotherapy was needed to enable the third complainant to move on. 2.20 On 17 February 2009, the Migration Court rejected the complainants’ appeal in four judgments. While acknowledging the probability of the first complainant’s torture by the authorities, the Court ruled that the events happened too long ago that the authorities would continue to be interested in the family. It further noted that, in the absence of passports, which the family reportedly left to the smuggler on their arrival to Sweden, it could not confirm their identity. It further maintained that their unproblematic application for passports at the Egyptian embassy in Oman also confirmed that the authorities were not interested in the family. With regard to the second complainant, the Migration Court stated, inter alia, that she has not been able to prove her story using documents or other evidence, although the information she has given was coherent and did not conflict with known facts. 2.21 The complainants appealed the judgments to the Migration Court of Appeal. On 8 March 2009, their counsel presented detailed argumentation as to why the Migration Court of Appeal ought to grant leave to appeal. He argued, inter alia, that the first and third complainants had been subjected to grave torture and severe abuse. The Migration Court had made an incorrect interpretation of the legal rules in assessing that the threats to the first complainant have disappeared, since the abuse took place so long ago. Counsel stated that this assessment had no support in the country information about Egypt and asked the Migration Court of Appeal to provide guidelines as to what facts may be required for previous threats to disappear. The complainants claimed that conditions in Egypt had not changed for 20 years; the same state of emergency was still in force then as in the 1980s. 2.22 Counsel further argued that the events of the 1980s still shaped the behaviour of the Egyptian authorities towards persons who were suspected of involvement with Islamists. The first complainant had been accused of having a link to such a group and had, as a result, been subjected to torture and abuse. The reason was that he had close ties with his cousins Khalid Islambouli, who allegedly killed President al-Sadat, and Mohammed Islambouli, who had fled Egypt and became a well-known person in Al-Qaida. The first complainant belonged to a noble family that was part of the power elite at the time of the Presidents Nasser and Al-Sadat, which reinforced the assumption that the security police was interested in him. Furthermore, the Migration Court had not taken account of the fact that the first complainant fled Egypt in 1987, even though he was required to report to the police and had a travel ban. It was, therefore, probable that he would be of interest again if he were to return. Counsel added that it was rather remarkable that the Migration Court 7