CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 and that his nephew’s whereabouts since his arrest in September 2011 remain unknown and that it is not unreasonable to believe that his nephew died while in police custody. In addition, he claims that his wife was visited by the security forces looking for him after he fled to Ingushetia. He concludes that the events demonstrate a pattern of personal harassment and persecution. The complainants conclude that, if deported, Sweden would be in violation of its non-refoulement obligation under article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainants submit a letter from 4 February 2011 on the treatment of protection applications that may be lodged by Chechen refugees by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).1 According to that note, whereas in 2003 there was a sweeping UNHCR assessment that all Chechen asylum seekers were in need of international protection, in 2011 the situation had changed given the overall improvement in the security situation. UNHCR stated, however, that members of illegal armed formations and their relatives, political opponents and human rights activists were among those whose personal safely and rights could be at risk. UNHCR recommended that all protection applications from Chechen refugees should be considered on the basis of their respective individual merit. It added that internal relocation within either Chechnya or other parts of the Russian Federation should not be considered as available for Chechen asylum seekers fleeing persecution in the meaning of article 1A of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 11 July 2014, the State party submits that the complainants’ case had been assessed under the 2005 Aliens Act, which entered into force on 31 March 2006. Since the Committee is well aware of the content of the relevant domestic law from other cases against Sweden concerning the expulsion of aliens, and since the domestic decisions and judgements contain descriptions of the relevant domestic law of which the complainants should also be well aware, the State party does not find it necessary to add any information in this regard. It may nevertheless be worth mentioning that the 2005 Aliens Act, and the amendments to that Act, are available in English on the Internet. 4.2 The State party submits that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth complainants, according to their own information, arrived in Sweden on 11 March 2012 and applied for asylum the following day. The sixth complainant was born in Sweden on 27 April 2012 and, through his public counsel, applied for asylum on 8 August 2012. The Migration Board rejected their applications and decided on 15 July 2013 to expel them to the Russian Federation. The decision was appealed to the Migration Court, which on 19 November 2013 rejected the appeal. On 19 December 2013, the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and the decision to expel the complainants became final and not open to appeal. 4.3 The State party submits that, according to chapter 12, section 22, first paragraph of the Aliens Act, an expulsion order that has not been issued by a general court expires four years after the order has become final and is not open to appeal. In this regard, the State party would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the decision to expel the complainants will thus become statute-barred on 19 December 2017. This means, firstly, that the decisions to expel the complainants will no longer be enforceable after that date and that the complainants will then no longer be under threat of expulsion. Secondly, a new application for asylum and a residence permit and the reasons put forward in support thereof will be re-examined in full and a negative decision by the Migration Board is 1 The complainant presents a copy of a letter to his counsel signed by a Senior Regional Legal Officer of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, dated 4 February 2011. 4