husbands of Mauritian citizens no longer have the right to free access to Mauritius and immunity from deporta­ tion therefrom, whereas prior to 12 April 1977, this group of persons had the right to be considered, i/e facto, as residents of Mauritius. They now must apply to the Minister of the Interior for a residence permit and in case of refusal of the permit they have no possibility to seek redress before a court of law. subjected to arbitrary and unlawful interference with his family. The State party argues, however, that each case must be decided on its own merits. 5.6 The State party recaUs that the Mauritian Con­ stitution guarantees to every person the right to leave the country, and that the foreign husband of a Mauri­ tian citizen may apply for a residence permit or even naturahzation. 5.7 The State party is of the opinion that if the ex­ clusion of a non-citizen is lawful (the right to stay in a country not being one of the rights guaranteed by the provisions of the Covenant), then such an exclusion (based on grounds of security or public interest) cannot be said to be an arbitrary or unlawful interference with the family life of its nationals in breach of article 17 of the Covenant. 5.3 The State party, however, considers that this situation does not amount to a violation of the provi­ sions of the Covenant which—in the State party's view—does not guarantee a general right to enter, to reside in and not to be expelled from a particular coun­ try or a certain part of it and that the exclusion or restriction upon entry or residence of some individuals and not others cannot constitute discrimination in respect of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Cov­ enant. The State party concludes that if the right "to enter, reside in and not to be expelled from" Mauritius is not one guaranteed by the Covenant, the authors can­ not claim that there has been any violation of articles 2 (1), 2 (2), 3, 4 or 26 of the Covenant on the grounds that admission to Mauritius may be denied to the authors' husbands or prospective husbands or that these husbands or prospective husbands may be expelled from Mauritius, and that such exclusion of their husbands or prospective husbands may be an interference in their private and family life. 6.1 In their additional information and observa­ tions dated 19 March 1980, the authors argue that the two Acts in question (Immigration (Amendment) Act, 1977 and Deportation (Amendment) Act, 1977) are discriminatory in themselves in that the equal rights of women are no longer guaranteed. The authors em­ phasize that they are not so much concerned with the unequal status of the spouses of Mauritian citizens—to which the State party seems to refer—but they allege that Mauritian women who marry foreigners are themselves discriminated against on the basis of sex, and they add that the application of the laws in question may amount to discrimination based on other factors such as race or political opinions. The authors further state that they do not claim "immunity from deporta­ tion" for foreign husbands of Mauritian women but they object that the Deportation (Amendment) Act, 1977 gives the Minister of the Interior an absolute discretion in the matter. They argue that, according to article 13 of the Covenant, the alien who is lawfully in the country has the right not to be arbitrarily expelled and that, therefore, a new law should not deprive him of his right of hearing. 5.4 As far as the allegation of a violation of article 25 of the Covenant is concerned, the State party argues that if a citizen of Mauritius chooses to go and live abroad with her husband because the latter is not en­ titled to stay in Mauritius, she cannot be heard to say that she is thus denied the right to take part in the con­ duct of public affairs and to have access on general terms of equality to public service in her country. The State party claims that nothing in the law prevents the woman, as such, from exercising the rights guaranteed by article 25, although she may not be in a position to exercise the said rights as a consequence of her marriage and of her decision to live with her husband abroad. The State party mentions, as an example of a woman who has married a foreign husband and who is still play­ ing a prominent role in the conduct of public affairs in Mauritius, the case of Mrs. Aumeeruddy-Cziffra, one of the leading figures of the Mouvement Mihtant Mauricien opposition party. 6.2 As has been stated, the authors maintain that they are not concerned primarily with the rights of noncitizens (foreign husbands) but of Mauritian citizens (wives). They allege: (a) That female citizens do not have an unrestricted right to married hfe in their country if they marry a foreigner, whereas male citizens have an unrestricted right to do so; (b) That the law, being retroactive, had the effect of withdrawing from the female citizens the opportunity to take part in public hfe and restricted, in particular, the right of one of the authors in this respect; (c) That the "choice" to join the foreign spouse abroad is only imposed on Mauritian women and that only they are under an obhgation to "choose" between exercising their political rights guaranteed under article 25 of the Covenant, or to live with their foreign husbands abroad. (d) That the female citizen concerned may not be able to leave Mauritius and join her husband in his country of origin for innumerable reasons (heaUh, long-term 5.5 The State party further argues that nothing in the laws of Mauritius denies any citizen the right to marry whomever he may choose and to found a family. Any violation of articles 17 and 23 is denied by the State party which argues that this allegation is based on the assumption that "husband and wife are given the right to reside together in their own countries and that this right of residence should be secure". The State party reiterates that the right to stay in Mauritius is not one of the rights guaranteed by the provisions of the Covenant, but it admits that the exclusion of a person from a coun­ try where close members of his family are living can amount to an infringement of the person's right under article 17 of the Covenant, i.e. that no one should be 68