CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 torture or of being killed only because they speak a dialect of Dari used in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 6.29 The Swedish Migration Board and the Migration Court of Stockholm both concluded that an alternative of internal flight is available to the complainants, especially in Kabul. The human rights situation is better in Kabul than in other parts of the country. In case of voluntary return it could be possible for the complainants to obtain financial support under the Regulation Relating to Re-establishment Support for Certain Foreigners. Such financial support amounts to 30,000 Swedish krona for an adult who is over 18 (equivalent to about 3,000 euro). It can be granted to aliens who are returning voluntarily to a country where establishment is difficult due to the prevailing situation. Afghanistan is considered to be one of these countries. 6.30 In conclusion, the State party contends that the present complaint should be declared inadmissible (a) under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), for failure to exhaust all domestic remedies; or (b) under article 22, paragraph 2, as being manifestly unfounded, since the circumstances invoked by the complainants do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal: the complainants have not shown substantial grounds for believing that they would run a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 if deported to Afghanistan, and therefore the complaint fails to attain the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. State party’s further observations 7.1 By note verbale of 19 April 2010, the State party informed the Committee that, according to chapter 12, section 22 of the 2005 Aliens Act, an expulsion order that has not been issued by a general court on account of a criminal offence expires four years after the order became final and non-appealable. The Migration Board’s decision regarding the expulsion of the complainants became final and non-appealable on 28 March 2006 when the Aliens Appeals Board decided to strike the case from its list of cases after the complainants had withdrawn their appeal. The decision on expulsion hence became statutebarred on 28 March 2010. 7.2 When a decision on expulsion expires, the alien is summoned to a meeting at the Migration Board. At that meeting, the alien is informed that the decision on expulsion has expired and will be encouraged to re-apply for a residence permit. A new application after the original decision has become statute-barred entails a full examination of the reasons for asylum and residence permit put forward by an alien at that time. In principle, a residence permit is granted in cases where a decision on expulsion has become statute-barred without the alien being responsible for that fact by, for example, going into hiding to avoid enforcement of the decision. A rejection of the new application is subject to appeal to the competent migration court and further to the Migration Court of Appeal. 7.3 In the present case, the significance of the decision on expulsion being statute-barred is twofold: firstly, the decision against which the complaint before the Committee is directed is no longer enforceable, i.e. the complainants are no longer under a threat of expulsion; secondly, their new application for asylum and residence permits and the reasons put forward in support thereof will be re-examined in full, and a negative decision is subject to appeal to the Migration Court. 7.4 In the light of the above, the State party requests that the Committee discontinue the examination of the complaint, provided that the complainants withdraw their complaint before the Committee. Should the complainants decide not to withdraw their complaint, the State party maintains its position that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Considering that the original decision on expulsion is 13