CCPR/C/123/D/2371/2014 would not have been in the best interests of the children. It is undisputed that Mr. Maalem left Algeria when he was young, has resided for more than 30 years in Uzbekistan and has established connections with the State party. The State party has not adequately explained why its legitimate objective in upholding its criminal policy concerning aliens on its territory, notably applying retroactively a more restrictive version of the regulation providing for automatic expulsion, without exception, of aliens who have committed crimes and served their sentences should have outweighed the best interests of the authors’ children. In the light of all the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the expulsion order issued against Mr. Maalem constituted disproportionate interference with the family life of both authors and their children, which cannot be justified in the light of the reasons invoked by the State party to remove him to Algeria. The Committee concludes that Mr. Maalem’s expulsion order resulted in arbitrary interference with the right to family life, in breach of article 17 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 23 (1), of the Covenant, in respect of the authors and their children. 11.8 Concerning the claim under article 24, the Committee reiterates that the principle of the best interests of the child forms an integral part of every child’s right to such measures of protection as required by his or her status as a minor, on the part of his or her family, society and the State, as required by article 24 (1) of the Covenant.5 In the light of its conclusions under articles 17 and 23, the Committee considers that the expulsion order against Mr. Maalem has violated article 24 owing to a failure to provide his minor children with the necessary protection owed to them as children by the State party. 12. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that Mr. Maalem’s expulsion to Algeria would violate the rights of the authors and their children under article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 23(1), of the Covenant and under article 24 (1) of the Covenant, in relation to their minor children. 13. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated with an effective remedy. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to, inter alia, take appropriate steps to proceed to a review of the decision to expel Mr. Maalem with a restriction on his re-entry, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 14. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee’s Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State party. 5 See Bakhtiyari v. Australia (CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002), para. 9.7. 9