CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 the above, the State party argues that as a general rule, great weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities. 4.6 The State party notes that, in the present case, both the Migration Board and the Migration Court have generally accepted the statements of facts invoked by the complainants and it has no reason to make a different evaluation in this respect. The assessment of whether the complainants are personally at risk of being subjected to torture in breach of article 3 of the Convention if expelled to their country of origin today should, therefore, be made using the complainants’ own statements as a point of departure. In this regard, the State party affirms that it has no reason to question that the first complainant in the present communication has been exposed to the treatment he has described before the Swedish migration authorities and the Committee, or his family relationship with the convicted murderer of President al-Sadat. In view of this, it appears not unlikely that he still would attract the interest of the Egyptian authorities, even though the events took place a long time ago. In addition, his Internet activities in Sweden, questioning whether the real murderers of President al-Sadat were convicted and punished, should also be taken into account in this context. 4.7 As a consequence, the State party considers that it cannot be excluded that the rest of the family would also attract the interest of the Egyptian authorities. It recalls that the second complainant has allegedly been subjected to harsh and unpleasant treatment by the Egyptian security police. In addition, the third complainant has allegedly been repeatedly raped by police officers while in Egyptian custody. He has given an explanation of why he has not been able to provide any medical certificate showing that these rapes have taken place. He has also provided an explanation of why he did not dare to report these events to the Egyptian authorities. The State party notes that it is not possible to fully exclude that he would be exposed to similar treatment if returned to Egypt. 4.8 The State party concludes that, in the light of the first complainant’s background and the nature of the other complainants’ allegations, it leaves it to the Committee to assess whether an enforcement of their expulsion orders would amount to a violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5. On 17 June 2010, the complainants submit that, judging from the observations on the admissibility and the merits, they confirm with satisfaction that the State party has understood their case correctly. In particular, the State party concludes that it appears not unlikely that the complainants would attract the interest of the Egyptian authorities and that it is not possible to fully exclude that the third complainant would be exposed to torture or similar treatment if returned to Egypt. Therefore, the complainants do not wish to add anything to the State party’s observations, except from submitting a number of recent reports that support their claims and show that the situation in Egypt for persons considered to be connected with the Muslim Brotherhood is dangerous.8 The complainants conclude 8 Reference is made to Human Rights Watch, World Report 2009; Research Response prepared by the Research and Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (Australia) on the attitude of the Egyptian authorities towards the Muslim Brotherhood, dated 30 June 2009; Amnesty International, Egypt – Systematic abuses in the name of security (London, 2007); International Federation for Human Rights, Egypt: Counter-terrorism against the background of an endless state of emergency (2010); Human Rights Watch, “Egypt: Free Arbitrarily Detained Brotherhood Members”, 10 February 2010; and U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practices – Egypt, (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, 2010). 11