CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 the latest judgement as being the relevant one in deciding whether a family life exists. However, when assessing whether legal interference is “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court does not attach decisive effect to a situation created at the time when the applicant was excluded from the territory of the state.14 7.8 The State party notes that in the present case, the Eastern High Court order of 22 January 2008 upheld the Copenhagen City Court order that the expulsion, pursuant to the Supreme Court judgement of 19 August 2005, was not to be revoked. 7.9 The State party reiterates that the applicant did not have any children at the time of the Eastern High Court order of 22 January 2008. The applicant’s vital family link and relationship with his children was formed after the expulsion order was final, thus, in the State party’s view, that relationship should not be given decisive weight in the Committee’s assessment of the compliance of the Eastern High Court order with articles 2, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. 7.10 Finally, the State party explains that, according to practice, a two-year visitor’s visa may be issued, in exceptional cases, to aliens who have been expelled with a permanent reentry ban, if there is a pressing need for the applicant’s presence in Denmark,15 and thereafter, where exceptional reasons render it appropriate.16 7.11 The State party concludes that the communication should be rejected by the Committee as inadmissible for insufficient substantiation. Should the Committee find the Communication admissible, the return of the author to Afghanistan should not be considered a violation of the author’s rights under article 2, 13, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in the communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the State party has neither invoked article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, nor demonstrated the availability of a second review of the expulsion order, under section 50 of the Aliens Act, in the present case that would have allowed it to reconsider the expulsion order in the light of the author’s changed family situation. 8.4 With respect to the author’s claim that he would not have access to counsel if he were presented at border control in Afghanistan for the purpose of identification and, therefore, he would be deprived of an important safeguard against acts of torture or illtreatment, the Committee considers that the author does not provide any information as to why he would be subject to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee 14 15 16 European Court of Human Rights, Dalia v. France, application No. 26102/94, judgment of 19 February 1998, paras. 45 and 54. For instance, if the applicant has to give evidence as a witness in legal proceedings in which the court deems the applicant’s presence to be of material importance to the completion of the proceedings, or in case of acute, serious illness of a spouse or child living in Denmark. For instance, in case of serious illness or death of a family member living in Denmark. 13