CCPR/C/116/D/2060/2011 HIV-positive and their future health conditions were uncertain, their children needed them to provide a greater possibility of stable parenting, in particular if one of them became ill or died. Further, since his wife and one daughter were also HIV-positive, they would need to remain in Canada to receive medical treatment. Therefore, it was unlikely that his wife and children would visit him in Zimbabwe. Finally, he claimed that his criminal convictions were all for non-violent crimes and that the longest sentence was 100 days. Against that background, the decision to remove the author to his country of origin was disproportionate to the State party’s aim of preventing criminal offences.10 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 16 August 2011, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it was incompatible with the Covenant, the allegations had not been substantiated that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. Should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party maintains that the author’s removal to his country of origin would not be a violation of the Covenant. 4.2 The State party points out that since his arrival in Canada, the author has been convicted of 11 criminal offences and was charged with many more; many charges laid against him over the years for violent and non-violent offences (14 fraud-related charges and 8 assault charges) were subsequently withdrawn by the prosecuting attorneys and did not go to trial. While not proven in court, these charges illustrate the extent to which the author came into conflict with the law. In particular, his assault charges were serious enough to result in a court order prohibiting him from having any contact with his alleged victims, namely his two extramarital partners, B.N. and A.M., for a period of one year. He was also prohibited from possessing any weapons during that period. A.M. was visibly pregnant with the author’s child when one of the alleged assaults took place. On 30 May 2011, the author was charged with two more counts of assault, of which the alleged victim was his wife. At the time the State party’s observations were submitted to the Committee, the author was in detention awaiting trial on four outstanding fraud-related criminal charges (three counts of fraudulent use of credit card data and one count of fraud in an amount exceeding Can$ 5,000). The State party further notes that the author involved his wife and B.N. in his criminal activities. Both women were arrested in connection with crimes committed with him. This resulted in his children being placed in foster care while he and his wife were incarcerated. 4.3 The author had also displayed a complete disregard for the law by violating almost all the court orders and immigration conditions imposed on him. Most significantly, he violated the peace bond of 19 February 2004 requiring him to have no contact with B.N and A.M. 4.4 The State party maintains that the author’s allegations under article 2 (3) of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, since they are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant. The author invoked article 2 (3) as the basis of a free-standing right to an effective legal remedy. In the alternative, the alleged violation of article 2 (3) is not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 4.5 As to the author’s claims of violation of articles 6 (1) and 7 in connection with his allegations that he would be at risk of political persecution in Zimbabwe, whether as a failed asylum seeker or otherwise, the State party maintains that they are inadmissible on 10 See communication No. 1792/2008, Dauphin v. Canada, Views adopted on 28 July 2009. 7