CCPR/C/125/D/2948/2017 12. If the adult authors were deported from Canada, their children would be forced to go with them to a country that they do not know and whose nationality they do not possess; this could constitute interference with their privacy and family life, in violation of articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant. Furthermore, since the children have been granted only 180-day tourist visas for India, they are likely to face uncertainty as to their status after the expiration of that period. At that stage, they would have to either leave their parents behind and return to Canada, or remain in India illegally. Family separation, as an indirect result of the deportation order, would therefore risk causing irreparable harm to the children (see para. 3.3) and could prove to be arbitrary. 13. The deportation of the family could also involve a violation of article 24 of the Covenant, in particular with regard to the health of the children, one of whom is asthmatic (para. 3.1) and requires specialist health care, and their education, which would not be provided under the same conditions as in Canada (para. 3.4). The children would leave behind the educational system to which they are accustomed, as well as their friends, and would be placed in an environment that is completely alien to them. 14. However, according to article 24 (1) of the Covenant, the protection of minors is the responsibility not only of parents, but also of States parties. 15. The separation of a person from his or her family, in the context of deportation, can be regarded as arbitrary interference with the family if the effects of the separation are disproportionate to the objectives. 16. In cases where one part of a family must leave the territory of a State while the other part would be entitled to remain, the relevant criteria for assessing whether or not that interference with family life can be objectively justified must take account of the significance of the State’s reasons for the removal of the person concerned (see para. 4.8, where the State party seems to consider it almost certain that Mr. H.S. would be convicted of a criminal offence) and the degree of hardship the family and its members would encounter as a consequence of such removal (para. 5.4.) 17. In the present case, given that a procedure is still pending, that there has not yet been a definitive resolution of the matter of the adult authors’ permanent residence, and that a family reunification procedure (the reunification of the parents with their children, who are Canadian citizens) remains a possibility, we would have decided to request that Canada stay the execution of the order for the adult authors’ removal while their application remains under consideration, 1 in order to preserve the family unit and uphold the best interests of the children concerned. 1 10 Nakawunde v. Canada (CAT/C/64/D/615/2014), para. 6.9. GE.19-08918