CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 threatening phone calls from unknown people. They claim that they are certain to be arrested in Afghanistan for having sought asylum, which is considered a crime. 2.11 On 20 January 2009, the complainants submitted that their financial situation in Sweden had worsened, that they had lost their jobs, and have no means to live or right to health care. They submitted that one of the reasons why they had to leave the Islamic Republic of Iran initially was that their father, who was a lawyer and Member of Parliament, had made many enemies in Afghanistan, who are now officials in the present Government, and they fear to be killed if returned, simply on the basis of their name. The complaint 3. The complainants claim that their forcible return to Afghanistan, where there is a real risk that they will be tortured, would amount to a breach by Sweden of their rights under article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 26 January 2009, the State party contested the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It submits that under chapter 12, sections 18 and 19 of the Aliens Act of 2005, an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order has gained legal force. If during enforcement of such an order, information comes to light that may constitute an impediment to the enforcement, the Swedish Migration Board may grant a permanent residence permit if the impediment is of a lasting nature, or a temporary residence permit if the impediment is of a temporary nature. This may be the case, where, for example, new circumstances emerge on the basis of which there are reasonable grounds for believing that an enforcement of the order would put the alien in danger of being sentenced to death or of being subjected to corporal punishment, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In such cases, the Migration Board may issue an order staying the enforcement case. 4.2 The State party submits that under chapters 14 and 16 of the Aliens Act, the Migration Board’s decision can be appealed to a Migration Court with a further appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal, subject to leave to appeal to be granted. On 6 March 2008, the Migration Court decided, due to, inter alia, the deterioration of the situation in the complainants’ country of origin, to grant them a re-examination of the question of residence permits and therefore remitted the matter to the Migration Board. On 3 October 2008, the Board, taking into account the possibility of an internal flight alternative, rejected the complainants’ application for residence permits. The complainants appealed against the decisions of the Board to the Migration Court, which rejected their appeals in judgements dated 3 December 2008. The complainants did not appeal against the Migration Court’s judgements, which gained legal effect on 29 December 2008. 4.3 According to the State party, before even the Migration Court delivered its judgements, the complaint was lodged with the Committee. Thus, domestic remedies had not been exhausted at that time. Furthermore, the State party argues that the complainants did not appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal, which if successful, could have lead to the granting of residence permits. They did not thereby give the domestic authorities the full possibility of examining the new circumstances invoked. In the light of the foregoing, the State party maintains that the complainants have not exhausted all domestic remedies available to them. Consequently, the complaint should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4