CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 statute-barred, a new application to the Migration Board with the possibility to appeal to the Migration Court must be seen as an effective remedy against the alleged risk of a violation of article 3. Furthermore, the State party refers to rule 110, paragraph 2, of the Committee’s rules of procedure,12 according to which a decision on inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies may be reviewed upon receipt of a request by or on behalf of the complainant containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply, and states that it will be possible for the complainants to have their case examined by the Committee if their new application for asylum and residence permits is rejected. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 8.1 In a letter dated 11 March 2011, the complainants state that the situation in Afghanistan is worsening and that the risk to which they would be exposed in case of their deportation is well known, claiming that they will be imprisoned and extrajudicially executed if they were to return to Afghanistan. They add that they lived in Afghanistan for a very short period of time, and during that time they were subjected to persecution and illtreatment. During many years, they lived in the Islamic Republic of Iran as refugees and they have no connection to Afghanistan. They further claim that they originate from a dangerous region where terrorists, military and other armed groups are waging war. The complainants submit that their mother, brother and sisters live in Sweden and they want to live peacefully in Sweden, close to their relatives, and to continue their studies and plan for their future. 8.2 On 21 March 2011, the complainants commented on the State party’s submission of 19 April 2010. They maintain that Sweden rejected their asylum applications despite their claims being well founded. They believe Sweden is determined to deport them to a country which they barely know and where they do not have any siblings. The complainants further state that they have lost their confidence in the Swedish migration authorities and therefore decided not to re-apply for asylum as recommended by the State party, fearing that their new asylum applications would be automatically rejected and that Sweden would proceed to their deportation to Afghanistan without further notice. Additional submission by the State party 9. On 27 April 2011, in the light of its previous submission of 19 April 2010 (see paras. 7.1-7.4 above), the State party reiterated its position that the examination of the present complaint should be discontinued or it should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, since, after the decision on the complainants’ expulsion has become statute-barred, they have now the possibility of submitting new asylum applications to the Migration Board with the possibility of an appeal to the Migration Court and further to the Migration Court of Appeal. Additional comments by the complainants 10. By letter of 24 June 2011, the complainants maintained that Sweden is still deporting asylum-seekers to war-torn zones in Afghanistan, despite their claims being supported by objective and accurate evidence. Therefore, they have no trust in the migration authorities and they do not want to resume the asylum process in Sweden. They fear that, if they restart any procedural contacts with the Swedish Migration Board, their applications would be turned down and their cases would be automatically referred to 12 14 New rule 116, para. 2.