CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 concluded that the third complainant had not shown that it was probable that the abuse took place because of his father’s activities. He argued that the third complainant should have been given the benefit of the doubt, since the only information to emerge was that he was arrested and tortured on account of his father. Moreover, the Migration Court of Appeal should explain how to assess the situation in Egypt in respect of the risk of torture and other inhuman treatment. Counsel noted that emergency laws were in force in Egypt, which permitted torture in certain situations. 2.23 On 20 May 2009, the Migration Court of Appeal issued four decisions, refusing to grant leave to appeal. The Court found that nothing that had emerged in the case constituted grounds to grant leave to appeal.2 2.24 On 11 June 2009, the complainants applied for an examination by the Migration Board of impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion orders and requested, inter alia, residence permits, refugee status and travel documents. The Migration Board was also asked to stay enforcement of the expulsion orders and to appoint a legal aid counsel with a technical understanding of the Internet for the family. Among the grounds for examination and a stay of enforcement invoked by the complainants was the claim that the first complainant belonged to a group of intellectuals who thought that the murder of President al-Sadat was a conspiracy staged by President Hosni Mubarak and his faction. He believed that it had not been proven that his cousin, Khalid Islambouli, was the assassin. Since coming to Sweden, the first complainant had run a campaign to get the United Nations to investigate the murder of President al-Sadat and clear his cousin. The first complainant had started several blogs, where he had released information about the murder to which only he had access. The first complainant has checked the visitors’ Internet Protocol addresses and found that most of them were from Egypt. One series of Internet Protocol addresses could be traced to the Egyptian authorities. The first complainant believed that it was probably the security police, which was known for searching for dissidents on the Internet. Since the information could be traced to the first complainant, the security police was probably aware that he had posted it. There was, therefore, a strong risk that he would be prosecuted and given a disproportionately severe penalty, probably a capital punishment, for spreading this information. It had not been possible for him to submit this fact earlier, since it had only happened in 2009. 2.25 On 23 June 2009, the Migration Board rejected the requests for a stay of enforcement and for the appointment of a legal aid counsel. On 3 July 2009, the Migration Board decided not to grant residence permits under chapter 12, section 18, of the Swedish Aliens Act (Act) and not to grant a re-examination of the question of residence permits under chapter 12, section 19, of the Act.3 The Board determined that political activity in the country of flight, directed at the regime in the country of origin, could not provide grounds for asylum, unless it was shown to be probable in the individual case that the activity might lead to persecution or harassment from the authorities of the country of origin upon return. Case-law has established that if the measures taken by an asylum seeker in Sweden have not been assessed as having any purpose other than to influence his or her right to stay in Sweden, it has been considered that this fact alone ought not to be assigned decisive importance in the assessment of the need for protection. Furthermore, a person who 2 3 8 Reference is made to chapter 16, section 12, of the Swedish Aliens Act, under which leave to appeal may be granted in the Migration Court of Appeal if it is of importance for guidance in the application of the law that the appeal is heard by the Migration Court of Appeal or if there are other extraordinary reasons to hear the appeal. Rules regarding lasting impediments to enforcement of refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders that have become final and non-appealable are laid down in chapter 12, sections 18 and 19, read together with chapter 12, sections 1–3, of the Act.