CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 The complainants’ comments on admissibility 5.1 On 6 March 2009, the complainants indicated their surprise at the State party’s argument that they had not exhausted domestic remedies as, prior to being granted interim measures of protection, they had received several summonses to meetings to organize their deportation. In their view, they must have exhausted domestic remedies if the State party was in a position to deport them. They recall that the situation in Afghanistan is critical. Therefore, they express their surprise that the Migration Board, after having re-examined the question of residence permits, advocates an internal flight alternative, particularly in a country where there is so much violence. 5.2 The complainants believe that they have the right to live peacefully in Sweden instead of being expelled to a country where they endured torture, faced imprisonment and their father was subjected to persecution and retaliation by his enemies who currently hold the power in Afghanistan. They also maintain that their names are blacklisted in Afghanistan because of their father’s past activities, as explained thoroughly by their mother who is a refugee in Sweden. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 6.1 On 30 September 2009, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits. It presents detailed information on the pertinent Swedish asylum legislation and further submits the following information concerning the facts of the complainants’ case, based primarily on the case files of the Swedish Migration Board and the migration courts. The complainants’ applications for asylum have been examined in several sets of proceedings, including under the 1989 Aliens Act and under the temporary amendments to the 1989 Aliens Act. Furthermore, they have applied for permanent residence permits on several occasions under the 2005 Aliens Act, arguing that there were lasting impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion orders. These applications have been examined by the Migration Board, and as regards the second complainant, also once by the Migration Court, without being accepted for a re-examination. After the latest application, a re-examination of the matter of a residence permit was granted by the Migration Court. The Migration Board and the Migration Court subsequently undertook a re-examination of the matter. 6.2 The two complainants are brothers, born in 1981 (the first complainant) and 1980 (the second complainant). They are both citizens of Afghanistan. They applied for residence permits at the Swedish embassy in Tehran on 25 April 2001. Their applications were based on the fact that their mother and four of their eight siblings resided in Sweden. The applications were rejected by the Migration Board on 29 January 2002. It made the assessment that no special relationship of dependence had existed between the complainants and their relatives at the time when the latter moved to Sweden. The appeal was rejected by the Aliens Appeals Board. 6.3 In July 2003, the complainants applied for residence permits in Sweden under false identities. The applications were based on the allegation that they had married two women with residence permits in Sweden. On 18 June 2004, they were granted temporary residence permits for six months under their false identities. They arrived in Sweden on 30 June 2004. The State party submits that the complainants have incorrectly stated in their complaint to the Committee that they willingly revealed their real identities to the Migration Board once in Sweden. During the process of extending the temporary residence permits, the Migration Board found out that the complainants had been granted residence permits under false identities and that their alleged wives were in fact their own sisters. They admitted to this only after having been confronted with this information by the Migration Board. As a result, the Migration Board initiated a process of ordering their expulsion to the country of origin and appointed a legal counsel for them. It also reported the complainants to the police. 5