CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 that the State party supports their case and that it is clear that they have been subjected to a violation of the Convention. The complainants’ further submission 6.1 In a further submission dated 26 October 2011, the complainants submit that, despite political changes, they consider the situation in Egypt still to be extremely dangerous for them. Even if President Mubarak and his Government had to leave, the military and security police are still the same organizations as before the revolution. Since the complainants have been interrogated and tortured by the military police, it cannot be excluded that they would be exposed to similar treatment if returned to Egypt. They add that the Egyptian authorities consider the first complainant to be connected with the Islamist terror groups. Therefore, he and his family would still attract the interest of the Egyptian authorities. 6.2 The complainants recall that the first complainant is an active blogger and has criticized the military regime in Egypt. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has warned news organizations that it was illegal to criticize the military in the press. A military court sentenced a blogger, Maikel Abil, to three years’ imprisonment for insulting the military. Others have criticized the Supreme Council over press reports that female detainees in military custody were subjected to “virginity tests” by doctors. Military police has occasionally clashed with protestors, leading to one death on 8 April 2011 and hundreds of arrests.9 The complainants argue, therefore, that it cannot be excluded that the first complainant would be exposed to similar treatment if returned to Egypt. 6.3 Finally, the complainants emphasize that the first complainant’s cousin, Khalid Islambouli, was found guilty of killing President al-Sadat in 1982 and this fact alone makes the first complainant a well-known suspect for the military and security police for life. For this reason, he will be of interest for them whenever he enters Egypt. State party’s further submission 7.1 In a further submission dated 3 January 2012, the State party notes, like the complainants, that major developments took place in Egypt during 2011. However, it cannot find that the general situation in Egypt calls for a change of position as far as the present case is concerned. 7.2 The State party adds that, on 13 September 2011, the Migration Board decided to reject a request from the complainants for a re-examination of their case pursuant to chapter 12, sections 18 and 19 of the Swedish Aliens Act (Act).10 The complainants submitted that there were impediments to the enforcement of their expulsion orders, inter alia, in the light of the significant deterioration of the situation in Egypt. However, the Board was of the view that the general situation as such did not prevent the enforcement of the expulsion orders. Nor did it give rise to a significant change of the previously made individual assessments regarding the possibility of the complainants’ return to Egypt. Consequently, the conditions for granting a re-examination of their case were not met, as no “new circumstances” within the meaning of the Act were considered to be at hand. On 7 November 2011, the Migration Court rejected the complainants’ appeal against the decision of the Migration Board, essentially on the basis of the Board’s line of reasoning. 9 10 12 Reference is made to the Congressional Research Service, 17 June 2011. See footnote 3.