CAT/C/35/D/237/2003 Page 7 people to leave El Salvador, including more than 600 persons whom travel agencies lured into going to Sweden by false advertisements, claiming that Sweden had a special programme for accommodating Salvadorians. 4.5 The State party contends that great weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish immigration authorities and their conclusions about the complainant’s credibility and need for protection. Although it may be considered established that the complainant had been subjected to torture in the past, this does not mean that she has substantiated her claim that she would be at risk of being tortured if returned. The torture took place more than ten years ago, and the requirement that the ill- treatment occurred in the recent past to make evident the risk of being subjected to torture if returned is not met. As far as the complainant’s husband and their children are concerned, they have neither claimed to have been subjected to torture in the past, nor that would they risk torture if returned to El Salvador. Great weight must be attached to the fact that the situation in El Salvador has changed completely since the time of the complainant’s arrest. In those years, there was a civil war and massive human rights violations were committed. 4.6 The State party notes that although the complainant was subjected to torture in 1989 and 1991, she and the rest of the family did not leave El Salvador until March 2001, just after the earthquake. The complainant and her family left the country legally and without any difficulty on two occasions, in 2001 and 2003. They received new passports in April 2003. These factors indicate that the complainants were not even in 1991 in any urgent need of protection and that there was no evidence that they were at risk of any kind of persecution from the authorities of El Salvador today. Neither before the Migration Board nor in their appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board did she argue that they would be at risk of torture if returned. Instead, the complainant’s husband stated that they had managed to overcome the political problems they faced in the past. It was not until their new application in December 2002 that the risk of torture in the event of return was raised. 4.7 The State party challenges the complainant’s statements about her political activities after 1992. In her second interview with the Migration Board she was asked if she had been politically active after 1992 and she replied in the negative. During the handling of the complainants’ application for asylum in Sweden, no further information was submitted about her activities in the FMLN after 1992. Instead, the complainants argued that, due to the complainant’s background, she was still at risk of persecution. Concerning the attacks on the complainant and her daughter in March 2003, the Government contends that there is every indication that this attack was a criminal one. The complainant herself had stated that she was uncertain who the perpetrators were. The attack was reported to the police, who registered it as a robbery. The complainant was robbed of some money and their passports but no threats related to political activities were made. The risk of being subjected to ill- treatment by a nongovernmental entity or by private individuals without the consent or acquiescence of the government of the receiving country falls, according to Committee’s jurisprudence, outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. The State party adds that despite the fact that there are problems in El Salvador, it cannot be agued that there exist a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 4.8 The State party concludes that the circumstances invoked by the complainant do not suffice to establish that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirement of being foreseeable, real and personal. The complainant has not substantiated her claim that there are substantial