CCPR/C/117/D/2387/2014 Annex II [Original: Spanish] Individual opinion of Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia 1. Regrettably, I must dissent from the opinion of the majority of the Committee on communication No. 2387/2014. 2. I find that, notwithstanding the State’s concern over the author’s criminal record, there was evidence of a personal estrangement from his country of birth, his family and his culture that would put the author’s bodily and mental integrity at imminent risk if he was deported to Somalia, a country in which he was not guaranteed minimum living conditions and where family and clan support networks are essential for persons with a profile such as his. The author’s deportation to a third country could have been a less drastic option than the removal ordered. 3. However, the State chose to centre the case on the argument that the author represented “a danger to the public in Canada”, that this danger greatly outweighed “any minimal risk the author could face in Somalia”, and that “the humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the author’s particular circumstances are insufficient to overcome this finding”. In my opinion, there were more than humanitarian reasons for not deporting the author to Somalia, a country which he left more than 20 years ago and to which his only connection is his nationality. 4. If the author was deported to Somalia, he would not only be forced to be a “foreigner in his own country”. Having spent so much time away and thus become rootless and “westernized”, he would face risks to his physical and psychological integrity on account of the prominent political profile of his family, who were forced to flee to Canada, while his lack of family or clan support would leave him in a situation of extreme vulnerability, as the Committee concluded previously in a similar case (communication No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011). I find that the author’s profile would place him in one of the risk categories identified by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in relation to the situation in Somalia. 5. Any restrictions imposed by a State party on the rights set out in the Covenant regarding a person under its jurisdiction must satisfy the test of legality, necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. I believe that in this case the State party has not been able to demonstrate that the deportation measure was reasonable, much less proportionate to the aim pursued. Nor has it shown that such a measure, in lieu of other, less restrictive measures, is necessary to ensure public safety. 6. In the light of the above, I find that, if the author is deported, the State will be violating the rights set forth in articles 6, 7, 17 and 23 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 16 GE.17-03930