CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 4.2 The State party submits that, should the Committee conclude that the communication is admissible, the issue before the Committee on the merits is whether the expulsion of the complainants would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to another state where there are substantial grounds4 for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In this respect, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 5 according to which the aim of the determination of whether the forced return of a person to another country would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk6 of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country. For a violation of article 3 to be established, additional grounds must exist showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 4.3 As far as the general human rights situation is concerned, the State party submits that Egypt has signed/ratified all key United Nations human rights treaties, including the Convention. It has not, however, ratified or signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Since 1996, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has unsuccessfully requested permission to conduct a visit. A national Human Rights Council has been established under the leadership of Boutros Boutros Gali. The State party adds that much remains to be done concerning the treatment of arrestees and detainees and the occurrence of torture at police stations, especially in cases relating to political arrests, and refers to a number of reports assessing the general human rights situation in Egypt.7 4.4 The State party states that, while it does not wish to underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the human rights situation in Egypt, there can be no doubt that the circumstances referred to in the above-mentioned reports do not in themselves suffice to establish that the complainants’ forced return to Egypt would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Against this background, the State party holds that it cannot be said that the situation in Egypt is such that there is a general need of protection for asylum seekers from Egypt. The Committee, therefore, should determine the complainants’ personal risk of being subjected to torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, following their removal to Egypt. 4.5 The State party submits that the Swedish migration authorities and courts apply the same test in assessing the risk of being subjected to torture when considering an asylum application under the Act, as the Committee would apply when examining a subsequent communication under the Convention. The State party adds that it must be appreciated that the national authority conducting the asylum interviews is in a very good position to assess the information submitted by the asylum seeker and to assess the credibility of his or her claims. In the present case, the Migration Board has conducted a number of interviews with the complainants and there also was an oral hearing before the Migration Court. In view of 4 5 6 7 10 Emphasis is added by the State party. Communication No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and communication No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. Emphasis is added by the State party. Reference is made to the UK Border Agency, Arab Republic of Egypt (Home Office, 2009); U.S. Department of State, 2008 Country Report on Human Rights Practices – Egypt (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, 2009); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2009; and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs report on human rights in Egypt in 2007 (2008).