for the complainant in the context of the confidential proceedings under article 22 of the Convention, is not set out in the Committee’s present decision, which is publicly available. 4.6The State party observes that on 12 December 2002, after referral of the case from the Migration and Aliens Appeals Boards, a State secretary of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs met with a representative of the Egyptian Government in Cairo, Egypt. At the State party’s request and with the Committee’s agreement, details of the identity of the interlocutor are not reflected in the text of the present decision. As the State party was considering excluding Mr. A. from protection under the Refugee Convention, the purpose of the visit was to determine the possibility, without violating Sweden’s international obligations, including those arising under the Convention, of returning Mr. A. and his family to Egypt. After careful consideration of the option of obtaining assurances from the Egyptian authorities with respect to future treatment, the State party’s Government concluded it was both possible and meaningful to enquire whether guarantees could be obtained that Mr. A. and his family would be treated in accordance with international law upon return to Egypt. Without such guarantees, return to Egypt would not be an alternative. On 13 December 2002, requisite guarantees were provided by the official interlocutor in question. 4.7The State party then sets out in detail its reasons for refusing, on 18 December 2001, the asylum claims of Mr. A. and the complainant. These reasons are omitted from the text of this decision at the State party’s request and with the agreement of the Committee. 4.8In response to the Committee’s request for information on the whereabouts and conditions of detention of Mr. A. (see paragraph 1.2 above), the State party informs that he is currently held at Tora prison, Cairo, in pre-trial detention pending a retrial for which preparations are in progress. The prison is reportedly of a comparatively high standard and he is said to be detained in a type of cell normally reserved for persons convicted of non violent offences. In accordance with the agreement of Egyptian authorities, the Swedish Ambassador to Egypt met Mr. A. on 23 January 2002 in the office of the prison superintendent. He was not restrained by handcuffs or feet chains. He was dressed in ordinary clothes, with hair and beard closely trimmed. He appeared to be well-nourished and showed no signs of physical abuse. He did not seem to hesitate to speak freely, and told the Ambassador that he had no complaints as to his treatment in prison. Asked whether he had been subjected to any abuse, Mr. A. made no such claim. When informed that the guarantees issued by the Egyptian authorities precluded his sentence to death or execution, he was visibly relieved. 4.9On 10 February 2002, the Swedish national radio reported on a visit by one of its correspondents with Mr. A. in the office of a senior official at Tora prison. He was dressed in dark blue jacket and trousers, and showed no external signs of physical abuse. He did have some problems moving around, which he ascribed to a long-term back problem. He complained about not being allowed to read and about lack of a radio, as well as lack of permission to exercise. 4.10On 7 March 2002, the Swedish Ambassador again visited Mr. A. in Tora prison. He showed no signs of having been subjected to torture. He explained that his back problems had been bothering him considerably, and that he had been provided medication for this and a gastric ulcer condition. He had recently put in a request for transfer to a hospital ward in order to receive better medical treatment and hoped this would be granted. At the Ambassador’s request, he removed his shirt and undershirt and turned around, showing no signs of torture. 4.11As to the application of the Convention, the State party refers to the Committee’s constant jurisprudence that an individual must show a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. Such a risk must rise beyond mere theory or suspicion, but does not have to be highly probable. In assessing such a risk, which standard is incorporated in Swedish law, the guarantees issued by the Egyptian Government are of great importance. The State party, in the absence of Committee jurisprudence on the effect of such assurances, refers to relevant decisions of the European organs under the European Convention on Human Rights. 4.12In Aylor-Davis v. France (judgement of 20 January 1994), it was held that guarantees from the receiving country, the United States, were found to eliminate the risk of the applicant being sentenced to death. The death penalty could only be imposed if it was actually sought by the State prosecutor. By contrast, in Chahal v. United Kingdom (judgement of 15 November 1996), the Court was not persuaded that assurances from the Indian Government that a Sikh separatist that he “would enjoy the same legal protection as any other Indian citizen, and that he would have no reason to expect mistreatment of any kind at the hands of the Indian authorities” would provide an adequate guarantee of safety. While not doubting the Indian Government’s good faith, it appeared to the Court that despite the efforts of inter alia the Indian Government and courts to bring about reform, violations of human rights by members of the security forces in Punjab and elsewhere in India was a recalcitrant and enduring problem. The case law thus suggests that guarantees may be accepted where the authorities of the receiving State can be assumed to have control of the situation. 4.13Applying this test, the current case is more in line with Aylor-Davis. The guarantees were issued by a senior representative of the Egyptian Government. The State party points out that if assurances are to have effect, they must be issued by someone who can be expected to be able to ensure their effectiveness, as, in the State party’s view, was presently the case in light of the representative’s position. In addition, at the December meeting between the Swedish State secretary and the Egyptian official, it was made clear to the latter what was at stake for Sweden: as article 3 is of absolute character, the need for effective guarantees was explained at length. The State secretary reaffirmed the importance for Sweden to abide by its international obligations, including the Convention, and that as a result specific conditions would have to be fulfilled in order to make any expulsion possible. It was thus necessary to obtain written guarantees of fair trial, that he would not be subjected to torture or other inhuman treatment, and that he would not be sentenced to death or executed. The trial would be monitored by the Swedish Embassy in Cairo and it should be possible to visit Mr. A. regularly, even after conviction. Moreover, his family could not be subjected to any kind of harassment. It was made clear that Sweden found itself in a difficult position, and that Egypt’s failure to honour the guarantees would impact strongly on other European cases in the future. 4.14The State party expands on the details of these guarantees. The details have been omitted from the text of the decision by the request of the State party, and with the consent of the Committee. The State party points out that the guarantees in question are considerably stronger than those provided in Chahal and are couched much more affirmatively, in positive terms. The State party