The judge determined that the issue of “whether circumstances would ever justify deportation to face torture” as per the Suresh “exception” must be decided on the basis of a proper evidentiary record, which did not exist in the Mahjoub case. The court therefore decided to remit the case for a redetermination. The judgement is nonetheless instructive on the issues of the delegate’s finding that Mahjoub would, in fact, be at risk of torture and ill-treatment if returned to Egypt, and the Canadian government practice of securing diplomatic assurances to justify deportations where there is an acknowledged risk of such abuse. The delegate’s report stated that Mahjoub would be taken into custody immediately upon return to Egypt and subjected to a retrial for an April 1999 conviction in absentia for terrorist activities. The report concluded: In consideration of the reports regarding human rights violations in Egypt towards members of VOC [Vanguards of Conquest] and AJ [alJihad], it is my opinion that on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Mahjoub could suffer ill-treatment and human rights abuses soon after he is detained.154 In light of this acknowledgement of Mahjoub’s risk of torture and ill-treatment, the Canadian government sought and secured diplomatic notes on three separate occasions, in which Egyptian officials confirmed that if returned, Mahjoub “would be treated in full conformity with constitutional and human rights laws.”155 The court decision noted: Mr. Mahjoub had argued that these assurances would not be respected, and submitted general reports concerning human rights abuses in Egypt, as well as reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and an expert in Islamic law. The reports documented the experience of other Egyptians accused of similar terrorist activities who were sent back to Egypt from other countries and who, notwithstanding assurances, were subjected to alleged human rights abuses, ill-treatment and incommunicado detention.156 154 Mahjoub v. Canada, para. 30. 155 Ibid., para. 31. 156 Ibid., para. 32. 53 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH VOL. 17 NO. 4(D)