CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 their ability to do so is limited by inadequate resources and dependent to some extent on the loyalties of the officers. In Kabul, ISAF (led by NATO), assists the Government in providing and maintaining security. Based on the existence of a limited judicial and legal system, the willingness of police authorities to enforce the law and the presence of ISAF, a sufficiency of protection is generally available in Kabul.6 An independent human rights commission (the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission) has been established and is working actively trying to improve the human rights situation in Afghanistan.7 On 23 June 2007, the Government of Sweden, the Government of Afghanistan and UNCHR concluded a memorandum of understanding concerning the return of Afghan nationals from Sweden. The major purpose of the agreement is to facilitate the voluntary return of asylum-seekers, but the agreement does not exclude forced return. The agreement expired on 30 April 2009 and has not yet been renewed. 6.20 As to the complainants’ personal risk of torture upon return to Afghanistan, the State party notes that the obligation of non-refoulement is directly linked with the definition of torture as laid down in article 1 of the Convention,8 and recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence to the effect that the obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, for the purposes of article 3, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is to be returned.9 The requirement of necessity and predictability should be interpreted in the light of its general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which it is for the complainant to present an arguable case, i.e. to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account of events.10 In this context, the State party recalls that the Swedish migration authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the Committee will apply when examining a complaint under the Convention. The national authority conducting the asylum interview is in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum-seeker and to evaluate the credibility of his or her claims. In the present case, the Migration Board held two interviews for each of the complainants regarding their applications, thus the Board had sufficient information, including the facts and the documentation available on file, so as to ensure that it had a solid basis for its assessment of the complainants’ need for protection in Sweden. Their applications for residence permits have been examined several times by the migration authorities, including the Migration Court of Stockholm. Therefore, great weight must be attached to the assessment made by the Swedish migration authorities. With regard to the merits of the complaint, the State party relies on the decisions rendered by the Migration Board and the Migration Court. 6.21 The complainants argue that, if deported to Afghanistan, they would risk being tortured or even killed, and invoke the following grounds: they do not speak the language of Afghanistan and they do not share the same culture; they were tortured in Afghanistan after being deported there by the Iranian police; their deportation would put them at risk of 6 7 8 9 10 10 United Kingdom, Home Office Operational Guidance Note, para. 3.6.6. Report on Human Rights issued by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.5. Communication no. 103/1998, S.M.R. and M.M.R v. Sweden, decision adopted on 5 May 1999, para. 9.7. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX, para. 5. See communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.4; and No. 265/2005, A.H. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 16 November 2006, para. 11.6.