CCPR/C/125/D/2948/2017 actually faces a real and personal risk. The State party also states that Mr. H.S. would have an internal flight alternative in India. The authors’ claims and evidence, which have already been examined by the Canadian authorities, are too weak to give rise to a non-refoulement obligation. 4.7 As regards the alleged violations of articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant, the adult authors’ deportation would not constitute interference, for it would not separate the family, and Canada would not be responsible for any separation of the family occurring in India. The State party also recalls that the Committee has confirmed that articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant allow States parties to exercise their discretion in cases where deportation would affect the family life of the person concerned. According to the Committee, the interference with family relations that would result from deportation cannot be regarded as either unlawful or arbitrary5 when the deportation order was made under law in furtherance of a legitimate State interest and due consideration was given in the deportation proceedings to the deportee’s family connections. 6 Canada also asserts that the authorities gave due consideration to the best interests of the children when deciding on the authors’ application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The authors have not shown that article 26 of the Covenant has been violated, for the child authors are not the subject of a removal order and the fact of having parents with an uncertain immigration status is not one of the grounds of discrimination listed in the article. According to the State party, each of these reasons is sufficient, in itself, to establish the inadmissibility of the communication. 4.8 The State party notes that Mr. H.S. currently faces criminal charges in Canada for having threatened a person with death or bodily harm on 21 May 2016, in breach of article 264.1 (1) (a) of the Canadian Criminal Code. If found guilty of this offence, he could receive a sentence of up to 5 years’ imprisonment; this would render him inadmissible to Canada on grounds of criminality. 7 4.9 Should the Committee nevertheless find this communication admissible, Canada would like to assert, in the alternative, that it ought to be rejected on the merits. It is unfounded and fails to demonstrate any violation of articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 23, 24 or 26 of the Covenant. 4.10 The State party has requested that the Committee lift the interim measures regarding this communication because the adult authors have failed to establish a prima facie case. There is no real reason to believe that their deportation to India would expose them personally to a real and imminent risk of irreparable harm. Should the Committee decide not to lift the interim measures, Canada would like to request that the Committee reach a decision on the admissibility and the merits of this communication as soon as possible. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In their comments dated 6 December 2017, the authors maintain that the State party’s arguments regarding the lifting of the interim measures are not based on any legal rule. They claim that the arguments put forward by the State party show that the communication is not inadmissible prima facie, since the State party raises issues relating to the merits of the case. They add that nothing has been proven as regards the children, meaning that, even if the Committee were to accept the prima facie inadmissibility of the parents’ complaint (which they refute), the point raised about the children’s situation in the event of deportation to India would remain valid. 5.2 The authors maintain that the act of sending children away to a country whose nationality they do not possess and where their fundamental rights might not be guaranteed justifies the continuation of the Committee’s interim measures in order to avoid irreparable harm. Flouting of interim measures, especially by an irreversible act, undermines the 5 6 7 GE.19-08918 General comment No. 16 on the right to privacy. Stewart v. Canada (CCPR/C/58/D/538/1993), para. 12.10. Canada, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, art. 36 (2). Available at https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/FullText.html. 5