CAT/C/20/D/65/1997 page 6 to examine the communication on its merits as soon as possible. It informs the Committee that the Immigration Board has stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order, pending the Committee's final decision in the matter. 5.2 As regards the domestic procedure, the State Party explains that the basic provisions concerning the right of aliens to enter or to remain in Sweden are contained in the 1989 Aliens Act. For the determination of refugee status there are two instances, the Swedish Immigration Board and the Aliens Appeals Board. In exceptional cases, the application can be referred to the Government by either of the two Boards. In this context, the State Party explains that the Government has no jurisdiction of its own in cases not referred to it by the Boards. Such cases are determined by the Boards independently. The State Party clarifies that the Swedish Constitution prohibits any interference by the Government, the Parliament or any other public authority in the decision making of an administrative authority in a particular case. According to the State Party, an administrative authority as the Immigration Board or the Aliens Appeals Board enjoys the same independence as a court of law in this respect. 5.3 As of 1 January 1997, the Aliens Act has been amended. According to the amended Act (Chapter 3, section 4 in conjunction with section 3) an alien is entitled to a residence permit if he or she experiences a well-founded fear of being subjected to the death penalty or to corporal punishment or to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Under Chapter 2, section 5 (b) of the Act, an alien who is refused entry, can apply for a residence permit if the application is based on circumstances which have not previously been examined in the case and if either the alien is entitled to asylum in Sweden or if it will otherwise be in conflict with humanitarian requirements to enforce the decision on refusal of entry or expulsion. New circumstances cannot be assessed by the authority ex officio but only upon application. 5.4 Section 1 of Chapter 8 of the Act provides that an alien, who has been refused entry or who shall be expelled, may never be sent back to a country where there is a reasonable cause to believe that he would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor to a country where he is not protected from being sent on to a country where he would be in such a danger. 5.5 As to the admissibility of the communication, the State Party submits that it is not aware of the same matter having been presented to another international instance of international investigation or settlement. The State Party explains that the author can at any time lodge a new application for re-examination of his case to the Aliens Appeals Board, based on new factual circumstances. Finally, the State Party contends that the communication is inadmissible as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 5.6 As to the merits of the communication, the State Party refers to the Committee's prior jurisprudence, and the criteria established by the Committee. In this context, the State Party submits that the relevant provisions in the Aliens Act reflect exactly the same principle as laid down