CAT/C/35/D/250/2004 Page 6 Amnesty International and an organization called FARR to confirm that if returned to Iran he would risk torture and possibly be sentenced to death. State party’s submission on the admissibility of the complaint: 4.1 By submission of 24 September 2004, the State party argues that the complaint primarily concerns expulsion on account of criminal offences. Under the Aliens Act, decisions on expulsion on account of a criminal offence are taken by the court in which the criminal proceedings take place. The court may request a non-binding opinion from the Migration Board on the issue of expulsion, but the Migration Board’s opinion is mandatory, when the alien alleges that there are impediments to enforcement of an expulsion order. An alien may not be expelled unless certain conditions are satisfied: he must have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment; it may be assumed that he would continue his criminal activities in Sweden; or, the offence is so serious that he should not be allowed to remain in the country. 4.2 According to Swedish Immigration Law, an alien who holds a permanent resid ence permit for at least four years when proceedings are initiated against him may be expelled only in exceptional circumstances, i.e. if he has committed a particularly serious crime or been involved in organized criminal activities. A refugee may not be expelled unless he has committed a serious crime against public order, unless security would be seriously endangered if he were allowed to remain, or unless he engaged in activities threatening national security. There is an absolute ban against expelling an alien to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment. A judgment or order of expulsion on account of a criminal offence is subject to appeal. It may be appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the court’s decision may in turn be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Government may cancel a judgment or order for expulsion if it finds that the judgment or order cannot be enforced. The Government’s power may be invoked only in respect of judgments or orders for expulsion that have become executory. 4.3 The State party dismisses the complainant’s claim that he obtained refugee status in 1982. According to the State Party, he had applied for a permanent resident permit and travel documents in March 1982, which were granted on 29 June 1982. Although, at that time, he was considered to be in need of protection as a refugee, he did not obtain a formal declaratio n on refugee status because he had not applied for one. In an opinion of 21 March 1984, the Migration Board stated that the complainant was to be considered as a refugee according to Section 3 of the 1980 Aliens Act and thus that he could not be expelled. 4.4 The State party notes that on 25 January 1988, when the complainant was wanted by Swedish police, his brother informed the authorities that he had left the country in October 1987. He returned to Sweden in early 1989. In criminal proceedings before the District Court of Uppsala, in 1993, he stated that he moved from Sweden on 24 August 1987. On 10 May 1995, the Migration Board revoked his residence permit on the grounds that since January 1988 the complainant was reported as having left Sweden. He rema ined in Sweden to serve the 1993 prison sentence, was released on parole on 12 October 1995 and left the country