also observes that Egypt is a State party to the Convention, has a constitutional prohibition on torture and acts of, or orders to torture, are serious felonies under Egyptian criminal law. 4.15The State party observes that the complainant fears being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention as a result of being Mr. A.’s wife. She makes no independent claim of political activity, or of detention or mistreatment in Egypt. In this light and in view of the assurances, it was thus determined that she did not qualify for refugee status. However in the light of her close association with Mr. A. and the general situation in Egypt, she may be considered in need of the protection extended to her by means of the guarantees obtained. In evaluating the prospects of respect for these guarantees, it is naturally of interest to know the extent of respect for the corresponding guarantee with respect to Mr. A., and, in the light of the experiences monitored with Mr. A., it may be assumed that the guarantees will also be effective with respect to the complainant. The State party points out, in this respect, that the cases of Mr. A. and the complainant have garnered wide attention internationally as well as in Sweden. The Egyptian authorities, being aware of this, must be taken to be sufficiently astute to ensure no ill treatment would befall the complainant. 4.16The State party concludes that its efforts in this case fully satisfy its international human rights obligations, including under the Convention, while complying with its commitments under Security Council resolution 1373. The complainant has not shown, in the circumstances, substantial grounds to fear torture in the event of a return, and thus her expulsion would not be in violation of the Convention. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions 5.1By letter of 20 January 2003, the complainant responded to the State party’s submissions. She affirms that Mr. A. was not involved in any terrorist activities, and thus resolution 1373 is not applicable. In any event it could not override other international obligations such as the Convention. In Pakistan, he was engaged by the Kuwaiti Red Crescent for humanitarian missions, while in Iran he studied Islamic subjects at university in order to receive a scholarship and thus support his family. She goes on to dispute aspects of the information supplied by the Swedish Special Branch concerning Mr. A.’s alleged activities. 5.2According to the complainant, the report of the Special Branch did not prove that he was involved in terrorist activities. In any case, there was no information that he had performed any such acts in Sweden. The report was not provided to their counsel, as everything but the opening sentence and the conclusion that he was a threat to national security had been blacked out, and it was thus very difficult to refute the conclusions. Similarly, the decision of 18 December 2001 denying the claim for asylum and ordering expulsion, a decision that was executed with respect to Mr. A. the same day and only reached the complainant the following day, did not detail the Special Branch’s information. 5.3As to the assurances provided by the Egyptian authorities, the complainant contends they are not sufficiently explicit, and it is unknown how extensive efforts were on the Egyptian side to guarantee implementation of the assurances, particularly given that they were provided a day after being requested. The complainant points out that the Swedish side did not require either any plans from the Egyptian authorities as to the manner of treatment during and after arrival or any assurance of an ability to visit for inspections regularly. As to the constitutional and legislative prohibitions on torture, the complainant observes that the practical reality is that torture is frequently resorted to by the security agencies. 5.4As to the radio interviewer’s visit with Mr. A., the interviewer notified counsel for the complainant that he had asked Mr. A. whether he had been tortured, and he stated that he was unable to answer. In counsel’s view, it is thus plausible to assume that he had been, and that he was able to so signal to the interviewer whereas he felt he could not to the Ambassador. In addition, Mr. A.’s counsel in Egypt is allegedly of the view he has been tortured. 5.5The complainant disputes the State party’s view of the jurisprudence of the European organs. She views her case as closer to that in Chahal, where the guarantees offered by India were not considered adequate. India, in contrast to Egypt, is a democratic State, with an effective judicial system. The security apparatus is generally controlled, and the fear of torture was confined to Punjab, a small area. By contrast, torture is widespread in Egypt and practised by many agencies, particularly the security services. If the Indian guarantee was not inadequate, a fortiori the Egyptian one cannot be. Moreover, in the complainant’s view, the position and responsibilities of the representative providing the assurances reduces the effectiveness of the assurance given. The complainant also considers the assurance provided by the Egyptian Government to be comparable to, rather than stronger than, the one at issue in Chahal. 5.6As to the prophylactic effect of publicity, the complainant argues that despite extensive publicity Mr. A.’s situation does not appear to have been relieved, and in any event it is unclear for how long such an effect would last. Thus, little store can be placed upon this factor by way of protection for the complainant. 5.7The complainant concludes that the Egyptian guarantee is inadequate and insufficient, in the light of Mr. A.’s experience and the monitoring to which he is subject, as well as the realities of the practice of the Egyptian security services. It cannot displace substantial grounds to believe that she, as the wife of an alleged terrorist, would be at risk of torture in Egypt in order to obtain information concerning, or to coerce, Mr. A. Supplementary submissions of the parties 6.1By additional submissions of 27 September 2002, the State party updated the Committee on the situation of Mr. A. Subsequent to the visits described above, the Swedish Embassy in Egypt continues to visit him once a month, in principle, with further visits taking place on 14 April, 27 May, 24 June, 22 July, and 9 September 2002. For the third visit in April, he was properly dressed and appeared to feel well considering the circumstances. He had no problems moving around and did not seem to have lost weight. When asked whether the Egyptian authorities had reneged on their agreement and maltreated him, he was initially evasive, claiming that the only problem was the lack of information regarding his retrial. When again asked as to his treatment, he answered he had not been