physically abused or otherwise maltreated. His only complaint was about sleeping problems from his bad back. A doctor had seen him the previous day and promised a thorough examination. When finally asked whether the friendly atmosphere during the visit was a sign he was all right and being treated well, he nodded affirmatively. 6.2During the fourth visit in May with the Swedish Ambassador, the general circumstances surrounding the visit were similar to those of the previous one; he looked well and healthy. He told Embassy staff that he had had a kidney infection and received treatment. His back problems had allegedly improved and he had been promised an X-ray examination. He complained about general prison conditions, such as the absence of proper beds or toilets in the cell. Family members would soon be able to visit him. 6.3During the fifth visit in June, again by the Ambassador, Mr. A. appeared to be feeling well and was able to move without problems. He did not seem to have lost weight. No new information was provided concerning his state of health. He again mentioned his back problems and that he had been promised medical attention. Family members had visited the previous day and a routine of fortnightly visits from family and counsel had been established. He was aware of the Embassy’s tasks and appeared to welcome the visits. He knew what the Embassy wished to be informed of and he gave straightforward answers to the Ambasssador’s questions. Upon leaving, he was observed in seemingly relaxed conversation with two prison guards. 6.4During the sixth visit in July, by the Ambassador, Mr. A. looked well and was dressed cleanly and had no problems of movement. The atmosphere was relaxed, with prison conditions allegedly the same as previously. Nothing new transpired regarding his health and treatment. He stated that he was not badly treated, and a family visit was expected later in the day. The seventh visit, in September, also with the Ambassador, was again relaxed. Mr. A.’s state of health was unchanged, having received an X-ray examination early in the month and awaiting results. The conditions of detention were unchanged. He was able to receive family visits fortnightly. He had been questioned a month previously, but had not heard further news as to his retrial. 7.1On 22 October 2002, the complainant responded to the State party’s supplementary submissions. On 23 January 2002, her parents-in-law had visited Mr. A. at Tora prison, with an Egyptian lawyer. Her mother-in-law alleges that he walked with difficulty and was supported by a prison officer. He seemed pale, weak, seemingly in shock and near breakdown. His eyes, cheeks and feet were allegedly swollen, with his nose larger than usual and bloodied. He told that he had been tied and hung upside down while transported to the prison, and then being constantly blindfolded and subjected to advanced methods of interrogation, including electric shocks. He said he was told the guarantees provided to the Swedish Government were worthless. This visit was then allegedly interrupted by the arrival of the Swedish Ambassador. 7.2Mr. A.’s parents made these observations public. They pursued efforts to meet with him to no avail, and were informed that this depended on their behaviour. On April 16, at short notice, they again visited him in prison. He allegedly whispered to his mother that he had been further tortured by electric shocks after the January visit, and held in solitary confinement for about 10 days. His arms and legs were tied behind his back and he could not relieve himself. He said he had told the Swedish Ambassador about the torture, and that prison officers had urged him to decline further visits from the Ambassador. He stated that officers had told him his wife would be returned soon, and they threatened to assault her and his mother sexually. He said he remained in solitary confinement, in a cell measuring two square meters, without windows, heat or light and that, while not tied, he could only visit the toilet once every 24 hours, which caused him kidney problems. 7.3From April, the parents were able to make monthly visits, and from July fortnightly, in a location different from where the Swedish Ambassador met Mr. A. Often, further visits were declined for various reasons. Officials had allegedly urged the parents not to disclose publicly information about Mr. A., and to encourage the complainant to return. The parents allegedly cannot provide further information for fear of adverse effects on Mr. A. 7.4While conceding that there are contradictions between the State party’s accounts of the visits with those of the parents, the complainant points out there are some commonalities, for example in detention conditions and certain evasiveness in Mr. A.’s replies. Necessarily, diplomatic contacts are formal, and Mr. A. would be reluctant to disclose elements within earshot of supervising officers which could reflect negatively on him. Rather, international standards in such situations require private and unsupervised contact with a prisoner, and qualified medical staff must be able to examine a prisoner suspected of torture. Failure to comply with such standards reduces the value of the State party’s observations. According to the complainant, the State party’s diplomatic representatives are not medically trained to determine signs of torture, and may skew their interpretations in favour of their Government. By contrast, parents and family are much more familiar with their son’s manners and he can whisper to them out of earshot of officials. As to the visit of the Swedish radio correspondent, he was only able to see Mr. A.’s face and hands. In any event, he complained of back pains and walked with difficulty, providing no comment to a direct question whether he had faced torture. 7.5As a result, the complainant argues that the State party has not discharged its burden of proof of showing Mr. A. has not been tortured. Plainly, the interests of the State security agencies in obtaining information, if necessary by torture, outweigh broader foreign policy interests to abide by their international assurances. As Mr. A. remains under investigation in these circumstances, allegedly for attacks on the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, in 1995 and on a tourist bus in Luxor, Egypt, in 1997, it is said to be likely that she will be detained, interrogated and tortured to obtain information from her or to induce her husband to cooperate with the investigators. 8.1On 29 January 2003, the complainant supplied a briefing note dated January 2003 from Amnesty International, in which it expressed the view that the complainant would be at risk of torture in the event of being returned, and that the guarantees provided were not effective. Amnesty International also refers to other relatives of political prisoners who had been allegedly detained and subjected to ill-treatment. The complainant also refers to advice obtained from Thomas Hammarberg, Secretary-General of the Olof Palme International Centre, who was of the personal view that the monitoring of Mr. A.’s situation had been problematic. 9.1On 26 March 2003, the State party updated on its contacts with Mr. A. since its previous submission. Since the visit in September 2002, the Swedish Embassy continued to monitor his condition, visiting him in November 2002, January 2003, and March 2003. At the eighth visit, on 4 November 2002 with the Ambassador and other officials, Mr. A. had no problems moving