CCPR/C/123/D/2371/2014 11.3 In the present case, the Committee considers that the decision of the State party to expel the father of five children, some of them minors, coupled with a restriction on re-entry into the country, constitutes “interference” with the family, in particular in circumstances in which, as in the present case, substantial changes in family life would follow. In that regard, the Committee observes that, although Mr. Maalem’s family life has been subjected to significant restrictions during his incarceration from 2009 to 2014, he has been able to preserve and maintain a close relationship with his family. 11.4 The Committee recalls that the notion of arbitrariness includes elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, 2 as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality. 3 The Committee also recalls that, in cases in which one part of a family must leave the territory of the State party while the other part would be entitled to remain, the relevant criteria for assessing whether the specific interference with family life can be objectively justified must be considered 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 would encounter as a consequence of such removal. 4 11.5 In the present case, the Committee observes that Mr. Maalem’s removal pursued a legitimate objective, which is the consequence of the enforcement of the State party’s criminal law. In addition, the State party explained that the decision to expel Mr. Maalem was issued on 24 February 2014 and upheld on cassation on 25 March 2014. The Committee notes that subsequently, on 5 May 2014, the Tashkent Mirzo-Ulugbek Civil Inter-district Court temporarily suspended the execution of the expulsion decision as child support was due to be paid by Mr. Maalem to his minor children, and his residence permit was extended until 17 April 2020. However, the Committee also notes Mr. Maalem’s argument that the State party applied retroactively to his case a more severe and restrictive version of the regulation providing for mandatory expulsion and a subsequent re-entry ban, which allows no exception, rather than an earlier version of the regulation under which convicted aliens who had lawful grounds to reside in the State party would not automatically be subjected to expulsion. 11.6 The Committee notes that the State party justifies Mr. Maalem’s removal from the country by the fact that he was convicted of the offence of human trafficking and subsequently granted amnesty, which leads automatically, without exception, to the expulsion of aliens who have been lawfully residing in Uzbekistan. Furthermore, the State party is of the view that the expulsion decision is fully in line with domestic legislation and serves a legitimate State interest. However, it is to be noted that Mr. Maalem has served his sentence and that there is no evidence that he constitutes a security problem for the State party. The Committee takes note of the authors’ argument that their children cannot be expected to follow their father to Algeria, as they are Uzbek nationals and have no ties with that country. The Committee also notes that if Mr. Maalem were to be deported to Algeria – a country that he left more than 30 years ago – the nature and quality of his family relationships could not be adequately maintained through regular visits, due to the re-entry restrictions imposed on him. 11.7 The Committee recalls the principle that, in all decisions affecting children, the child’s best interests shall be the primary consideration. The Committee considers that the State party failed to give primary consideration to the best interests of the authors’ children in the present case and that, as a result, its interference with the authors’ family life and the ensuing insufficient protection afforded to the family generated excessive hardship for the authors and their children. The issuance of an expulsion order against Mr. Maalem presented the authors with the choice of leaving the State party as a family unit, and exposing their children to unforeseen challenges, or breaking up the family unit. Either alternative confronting the family 2 3 4 8 See Ilyasov v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/111/D/2009/2010), para. 7.4. See general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 12. See Madafferi v. Australia, para. 9.8; and D.T. v. Canada (CCPR/C/117/D/2081/2011), para. 7.6.