CCPR/C/125/D/3041/2017 9. I concur with the Committee (para. 7.7) that the deportation order against the author and her two eldest children, but not her other minor children and her husband, constitutes interference in the family, within the meaning of article 17 of the Covenant. However, unlike the Committee, I consider that this interference, while lawful, is arbitrary, in the sense that the notion of arbitrariness includes elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality (para. 7.8). 10. In the present case, I do not think the interference in family life is appropriate, reasonable, necessary or objectively justified in the light, on the one hand, of the significance of the State party’s reasons for the removal of the person concerned and, on the other hand, of the degree of hardship the family and its members will encounter as a consequence of such removal. I am even less convinced that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In fact, since the State party itself recognizes the pending process relating to the author’s husband may allow a future application for permanent residence in Canada on behalf of the author and her elder children, why not wait for its outcome? Family unity would thus be guaranteed in the meantime and the best interests of all the children duly respected. 11. Accordingly, I consider the deportation order, if implemented, while the process of the author’s husband is still pending, not proportionate and therefore arbitrary, violating the author’s and her elder children’s rights under articles 17 (1), 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant. 14