CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 police for initiation of deportation measures. They maintain that they are at risk of inhuman treatment, extrajudicial execution and torture if forcibly returned to Afghanistan. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 11.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11.3 Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee from considering any communication unless it has been ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted; this rule does not apply if it is established that the application of domestic remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring effective relief. The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the complainants failed to appeal against the Migration Court’s decision of 3 December 2008 to the Migration Court of Appeal (see para. 6.15 above). The complainants have provided no arguments to the effect that an appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal would have been unlikely to bring any relief but merely argue that domestic remedies must have been exhausted as their deportation was being organized. The Committee also notes the State party’s uncontested information, according to which the complainants have never mentioned during the asylum proceedings that they have been tortured in Afghanistan, this claim being presented for the first time in their complaint to the Committee (see para. 6.23 above). Furthermore, it takes note of the information provided by the State party that the decision regarding the complainants’ expulsion became statute-barred on 28 March 2010, therefore it is no longer enforceable and the complainants are no longer under a threat of being expelled to Afghanistan. Moreover, they have now the possibility of submitting new asylum applications which will be re-examined in full by the Migration Board, with a possibility of an appeal to the Migration Court and further to the Migration Court of Appeal, if needed. The Committee observes, however, that the complainants have not initiated new asylum proceedings arguing that their applications would be automatically turned down and the Swedish authority will proceed to enforce the deportation without further notice. In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy do not absolve the complainant from seeking to exhaust such a remedy.13 The Committee is of the view that there is nothing to indicate that this new procedure cannot bring effective relief to the complainants, especially noting that they have now the possibility to raise before the migration authorities the claim that they have been tortured in Afghanistan in the past, which they have never done before in the context of the asylum procedure. 11.4 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that this communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies: (a) because the complainants did not appeal against the Migration Court’s decision of 3 December 2008 to the Migration Court of Appeal; (b) because they have never raised their claim of torture in domestic asylum proceedings; and (c) because they have not initiated new asylum proceedings since the decision regarding their expulsion became statute-barred, although they have been given such an opportunity. 13 See communication No. 202/2002, Jensen v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 5 May 2004, para. 6.3. 15