CCPR/C/125/D/2948/2017 illegally might have been brought to light and prompted the authorities to initiate deportation proceedings. 2.10 The Canadian authorities contacted the Indian authorities in order to obtain the travel documents required for the authors’ deportation, including 180-day tourist visas for the two children. The authors were scheduled to leave for India on 19 February 2017. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim, firstly, that their rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant would be violated if they were deported by Canada. Mr. H.S. would likely be arrested on arrival because of the charges against him and he fears that he would face extrajudicial execution because of his alleged political activities. The authors mention the overall human rights situation in India. They also point out that Mr. H.S.’s brother is missing. With reference to article 6 of the Covenant, the authors add that their child, J.S., is asthmatic and would likely suffer from asthma attacks if deported to India, owing to the poor air quality and the lack of medical care in that country. 3.2 The authors argue, secondly, that deportation would entail a violation of Mr. H.S.’s rights under article 9 of the Covenant, and also a violation of article 10 on account of the circumstances and conditions in which he would be detained if he was arrested. 3.3 The authors claim that, if they 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 would constitute interference with their privacy and family life, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant. Furthermore, since the children have so far 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. The authors state that the family separation that could occur as an indirect result of the deportation could cause irreparable harm to the children. With that in mind, the authors argue that the Canadian authorities did not take into account the best interests of the children in their decisions. The deportation is therefore arbitrary and constitutes a violation of articles 17 (1) and 23 (1) of the Covenant. 3.4 The authors also maintain that the family’s deportation would violate the rights of the children under article 24 of the Covenant, for they would not be protected as required by this provision. The authors claim, in particular, that the children’s health would be at risk, owing to the poorer hygiene conditions faced by children in India and the limited access to health care. The authors also believe that the children would not receive the same standard of education in India, where they are not familiar with the system or the language, as they would in Canada. 3.5 The authors also state that deportation would violate the children’s rights under article 26 of the Covenant, inasmuch as it would reflect discrimination based on the nationality of their parents. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 4 August 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 4.2 According to the State party, Mr. H.S.’s claims, namely that he would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the Indian authorities, that the expulsion of the adult authors would place their children, who have grown up abroad and without speaking Punjabi, in an unstable situation, and that J.S. needs medical care that he would be unable to obtain in India, should be declared inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure for three reasons. 4.3 Firstly, the adult authors did not exhaust all available domestic remedies, for they did not apply for leave for a judicial review of the negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division or of the decision to reject their pre-removal risk assessment application, even though this option was available to them. Canada maintains that, if the adult authors were dissatisfied with those decisions or believed that the decision makers had GE.19-08918 3