CCPR/C/116/D/2060/2011 Zimbabwe should he be removed. Against this background, he can be expected to benefit from family support, including for the purposes of obtaining antiretroviral treatment, if he were removed to Zimbabwe. 4.10 With regard to the author’s allegations under article 17 (1) and 23 of the Covenant, the State party maintains that they should be declared inadmissible for failure to sufficiently substantiate his claims. The author’s removal from the State party would interfere with his family relations insofar as his wife and children would in all likelihood choose to remain in Canada. However, the impact of this measure has been assessed in a thorough and effective fashion by the authorities in the context of his humanitarian and compassionate application and his request to defer removal. In this regard, the decision to remove the author despite his family connections in Canada was motivated by several considerations, including his history of separation from his family since arriving in Canada, his wife’s demonstrated ability to care for her children as a single mother, the lack of any evidence of the author’s involvement in his children’s upbringing and the lack of any submissions regarding his three other children with his two other partners. Accordingly, the author’s removal cannot be considered either unlawful or arbitrary for the purposes of articles 17 and 23. The charges against the author for assault on his wife give additional support to the conclusion reached by the State party authorities. These charges, while not yet proven in court, are consistent with previous charges of domestic violence laid against the author in the context of two other relationships. 4.11 The author’s removal would, in the circumstances, constitute a reasonable interference in his family life and would be a proportionate means of achieving legitimate purposes under the Covenant. The author cannot claim to ever have had any expectation of maintaining a family life in Canada since he never obtained any legal status in the State party which could have led him to expect that he would remain in the country.13 Furthermore, he failed to submit relevant and sufficient evidence showing that he is actively involved in his family as husband and father. On the contrary, available evidence shows that the author’s criminal activities have had a negative impact on his children’s lives. In particular, his and his wife’s arrests in 2007 and convictions for fraud resulted in their children being placed in foster care for a period of six months and remaining under the protection of the Children’s Aid Society until March 2009. According to the Society, the family had a history of concerns including transiency, not following through with medical appointments and medications prescribed for the children and the father having been involved in fraud-related charges.14 The fact that his children’s health was neglected in this way is inconsistent with the presence of a father figure that plays an active part in his children’s lives. In the context of the domestic proceedings, the author never expressed any interest in the children from his extramarital relationships and never submitted any evidence to suggest that he contributed in any way to their care and upbringing. 4.12 In these circumstances, the author’s removal to Zimbabwe would constitute a reasonable interference in his family life and would be a proportionate means of achieving legitimate purposes under the Covenant, namely protecting society from the author and ensuring the integrity of the immigration system of the State party. The effects of this interference on the author would not be excessive in relation to the harm sought to be prevented by his removal. He would be likely to reoffend if he were allowed to remain in the State party, with the result that he would face ever-longer periods of incarceration and separation from his family. This would impose an unreasonable burden on the justice system, while contributing only marginally, if at all, to his family life. 13 14 See Dauphin v. Canada, para. 8.4. The State party provides a copy of the Durham Children’s Aid Society’s service contract dated 13 June 2008 and letter dated 27 March 2009. 9