CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 Government of the receiving country, falls outside the scope of article 3. In any event, the complainants have not substantiated their claim that they would run such a risk. 6.26 There is nothing to indicate that the Afghan authorities would have any particular interest in the complainants. In making the risk assessment, it must be taken into account that the complainants have never lived in Afghanistan, that their parents left the country nearly 30 years ago and that (like more than six million other Afghans) they escaped from Afghanistan because of the war with the former Soviet Union. It is noteworthy that more than one million Afghan refugees have returned from the Islamic Republic of Iran to Afghanistan. In addition, the complainants’ own stories as told to the Migration Board do not convey the impression that the Afghan authorities would take any real interest in them. The first complainant expressly stated that he had not had any problems with the Afghan authorities when he was deported there, and the second complainant did not mention that he had been to Afghanistan. Furthermore, two of the reasons given for why the Afghan authorities would take an interest in them – the registration with the secret police of the first complainant and the position within the Government of their father’s enemies – are unsubstantiated and lacking in detail and were never presented to the Swedish authorities despite the fact that the complainants had several opportunities and plenty of time to do so. Moreover, with regard to the explanation given by the first complainant that he has been registered with the secret police because of his work as an interpreter for asylum-seekers in Sweden, the Swedish embassy in Kabul has reported that it has no knowledge of the present Afghan security service engaging in “asylum espionage” or if its registers contain information on Afghan asylum-seekers. The third reason, i.e., that the fact that they have sought asylum in Sweden is a very serious crime in Afghanistan, was not presented to the Swedish authorities either. The Swedish embassy in Kabul has reported that it is not aware that seeking asylum in another country would be a criminal offence under the Afghan law. In this context, the State party recalls that the Government of Sweden, the Government of Afghanistan and UNCHR have concluded a memorandum of understanding on the readmission of Afghan asylum-seekers, which would not have been concluded if seeking asylum had been a criminal offence. 6.27 The complainants allege before the Committee that they were tortured in Afghanistan. This claim is wholly unsubstantiated and it was not presented to the Swedish authorities. Notwithstanding this, it is recalled that the Committee has observed that, while past torture is one of the elements to be taken into consideration when examining a claim under article 3, the aim of the Committee’s examination is to determine whether the complainants would risk being subjected to torture now, if returned to their home country.11 6.28 As to the complainants’ claim before the Committee that they do not speak the language of Afghanistan, it should be noted that Afghanistan has two official languages, Dari and Pashto, which both belong to the Iranian group of languages. Dari is spoken by about 50 per cent of the population, while Pashto is spoken by about 35 per cent; in Kabul the majority speaks Dari. There is no doubt that both complainants speak Dari, given that the asylum interviews were conducted in this language. In addition, there is certain information indicating that the first complainant, at least, speaks Pashto. When he was interviewed in Islamabad in connection with his application for residence permit in Sweden on account of his alleged marriage to a woman living in Sweden, there was interpretation to and from Pashto and it was stated in the report that the complainant speaks Pashto. In the light of the foregoing, the complainants would have no real language problems if returned to Afghanistan. There is no indication that they would be exposed at any particular risk of 11 12 Communication No. 61/1996, X., Y. and Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2.