CCPR/C/116/D/2060/2011 State party’s refusal to allow one member of a family to remain on its territory would involve interference in that person’s family life. However, the mere fact that certain members of the family are entitled to remain on the territory of a State party does not necessarily mean that requiring other members of the family to leave involves such interference.24 It also recalls that the separation of a person from his family by means of expulsion could be regarded as an arbitrary interference with the family and a violation of article 17 if, in the circumstances of the case, the separation of the author from his family and its effects on him were disproportionate to the objectives of the removal.25 7.6 In the present case, the Committee observes that the author’s deportation to Zimbabwe constituted an interference with his family relations in Canada. Thus, it must examine if the said interference can be considered either arbitrary or unlawful. The relevant criteria for assessing whether the specific interference with family life can be objectively justified must be considered, on the one hand, in the light of the significance of the State party’s reasons for the removal of the person concerned and, on the other, the degree of hardship the family and its members would encounter as a consequence of such removal. In this regard, the Committee observes that it is not disputed that in the present case the interference had a legitimate purpose, namely the protection of the State party’s society and the prevention of other criminal offences by the author. During his stay in Canada the author was convicted of 11 criminal offences (see, for instance, paras. 2.8, 2.10 and 2.12) and he failed to comply with judicial orders and immigration conditions that were imposed on him. Although eight other charges of assault were subsequently withdrawn, they were serious enough to result in a court order prohibiting him from having any contact with his two extramarital partners — the alleged victims — for a period of one year. Further, at the time the author was deported to Zimbabwe he faced two outstanding assault charges in which the alleged victim was his wife. The Committee also observes that the author was born and lived in Zimbabwe for almost 28 years; that he studied, worked, married, and had his first two children there; that during his 10-year stay in Canada he was never legally entitled to reside there; that owing to his long absence from the family home his wife was mainly in charge of the upbringing and care of their children; that there is no indication as to whether he had provided for his children’s needs; and that the information provided by the author is vague and does not allow the Committee to assess the kind of ties he kept with his wife and children. Even if his wife and children stay in Canada, the Committee observes that there is no legal obstacle that would prevent them from visiting the author in Zimbabwe at any time. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the interference with the author’s family life has not been shown to be disproportionate to the legitimate aim of preventing the commission of further crimes. The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s removal to Zimbabwe did not constitute a violation of his rights under articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 ( 4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the author’s removal to Zimbabwe did not violate his rights under the Covenant. 24 25 14 See communications No.1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 8.7; No. 930/2000, Winata v. Australia, Views adopted on 26 July 2001, para. 7.1; No. 1011/2001, Madafferi v. Australia, Views adopted on 26 July 2004, para. 9.7; and No. 1222/2003, Byahuranga v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, para. 11.5; and Dauphin v. Canada, para. 8.1. See communication No. 558/1993, Canepa v. Canada, Views adopted on 3 April 1997, para. 11.4.