CCPR/C/125/D/2948/2017 protection of Covenant rights.8 They further maintain that it would be better to ensure the children’s education and health and not to expose them to the risks that would arise from deportation to a country whose nationality they do not possess. As regards the adult authors, they maintain that, although their situation was assessed by the Canadian authorities, the Committee should verify the procedure. Although it is generally for the national authorities to review evidence, the Committee can nevertheless check whether their evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 9 They add that deportation would violate the right to family life and justifies the application of interim measures. 5.3 The authors claim that the Canadian authorities did not consider the merits of the application and merely assessed the credibility of Mr. H.S. The authors’ application was not properly examined inasmuch as the pre-removal risk assessment officer did not review the authors’ situation, on the pretext that the facts had already been examined by a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. In addition, Canada cannot claim to be unaware that detainees are highly likely to suffer ill-treatment. It should also be noted that all the arguments put forward by Canada concern only the application submitted by the adult authors, without taking into account the children. In this regard, the authors point out that they submitted an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to the Canadian authorities in order to assert the rights of the children, which had not been considered up to that point. The response to this application had not been expected until 2019 or 2020, yet the application was rejected on 8 March 2017. An application for a judicial review of this unreasonable decision was submitted to the Federal Court. An out-of-court settlement was reached on 7 November 2017 between the authors and the State party, which agreed to reconsider the application before a hearing was held before the Court. In doing so, the State party acknowledged that the case had not been properly examined. 5.4 The authors maintain that deportation would constitute interference with their family relations.10 They argue that a decision by a State to deport the father of a family with two minor children forces the family to choose whether they should accompany him or stay in the territory of the State, and that such a decision should, therefore, be considered interference with the family.11 The separation of a person from his or her family, in the context of deportation, could be regarded as arbitrary interference with the family if the effects of the separation are disproportionate to the objectives. 12 With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, which states that the interference with family relations that is the inevitable outcome of deportation cannot be regarded as either unlawful or arbitrary 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, 13 the authors argue that, in their case, the State party itself admits that the family situation has not yet been properly assessed. Deporting the parents, under any circumstances, would violate the right to family life. 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 the specific interference with family life can be objectively justified must take account of, on the one hand, the significance of the State’s reasons for the removal of the person concerned and, on the other, the degree of hardship the family and its members would encounter as a consequence of such removal. 14 In this case, the catastrophic effects on family life and the family have already been shown in the comments submitted by the authors. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 Shukurova v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/86/D/1044/2002), para. 6.3, and Weiss v. Austria (CCPR/C/77/D/1086/2002), para. 7.2. Kurbonov v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/86/D/1208/2003), para. 6.3. Stewart v. Canada, para. 12.10. Byahuranga v. Denmark (CCPR/C/82/D/1222/2003), para. 11.5; Madafferi et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/81/D/1011/2001), para. 9.7; and Winata et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000), para. 7.1. Canepa v. Canada (CCPR/C/59/D/558/1993), para. 11.4. Stewart v. Canada, para. 12.10. Madafferi et al. v. Australia, para. 9.8, and Byahuranga v. Denmark, para. 11.7. GE.19-08918