CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014 views. It is these political views, together with the group’s power of gathering thousands of people, that makes it unwanted and hunted by both the Egyptian authorities and the opposition (the Muslim Brotherhood). The author asserts that he is unable either to seek protection anywhere in Egypt, or to freely determine his political status or to freely pursue the social and cultural development of Ultras Ahlawy in Egypt without risking persecution. 5.2 With regard to his claims under articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, the author asserts that he presented evidence to substantiate his allegations, namely, a threatening letter sent to his mother’s house, pictures of Egyptians who had been killed and tortured and who had been similarly active political opponents, and various articles explaining how the current regime enacts laws giving it the power to control social media for Ultras Ahlawy. The author reiterates that the authorities have searched his mother’s house several times after he was ordered to return to Egypt. He adds that, although the State party claims that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of his case, it does not explain why the Board’s background material on Egypt, namely, the database on Group II countries, was still not updated in January 2014. He maintains that the Board’s background material available online today, which is updated, supports his claims. He argues that the 2014 Freedom House Report and the 2014 Human Rights Watch World Report on Egypt both clearly indicate that there is widespread torture and inhumane treatment in Egypt, and that there are clashes between different political groups and the current regime. In the view of the author, the Board’s database contains no information about the Ultras Ahlawy. Since individuals who occupied the same or lower hierarchical positions in Ultras Ahlawy have been kidnapped, tortured or killed, the author asserts that he risks similar fate if returned to Egypt. 5.3 Regarding his claim under article 19 of the Covenant, the author considers that, because the Egyptian authorities have recently enacted laws limiting freedom of expression, they are able to arrest anyone who is politically against the regime and thus he may risk persecution on these grounds. 5.4 The author presents new evidence in the form of an Arabic-language online video purporting to depict Ahmed Abdelaziz Shobeir, former Vice-President of the Egyptian Football Association.10 The author asserts that Mr. Shobeir has high-level political connections and that he stated on 21 February 2014 that “Captain Ahmad Shobeir swears to God multiple times that Ultras Ahlawy is a terrorist group”. The author provides a detailed description of the contents of the video in English, alleging that Mr. Shobeir states that Ultras Ahlawy should be banned, that it was an ally in terrorism with the Muslim Brotherhood and that the Government of Egypt should stop Ultras Ahlawy. 5.5 The author asserts that he had interpretation problems during “the interview”. 11 He states that the interpreter was unable to properly translate computer-related issues and was therefore unable to convey the author’s explanation about how he knows with certainty that the Egyptian authorities have tried to hack Ultras Ahlawy’s Facebook page and shut down the webpage. He asserts that his argument was based on computer science knowledge and was not translated by the interpreter. The author further maintains that, contrary to the State party’s assertion, he never stated that the purpose of Ultras Ahlawy was to support Hamdeen Sabahi’s party, Al-Karama. Finally, he argues that he was not allowed to present his evidence as he had planned at any of his interviews with the Danish authorities, although he was very well prepared. 10 11 8 See www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT4PhgHBpO0. The author does not specify which interview is at issue.