CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant” (para. 11). While we agree with the first holding by the majority — that is, that the author’s new personal circumstances must be re-examined prior to his deportation — we do not agree with the implied conclusion found in the second holding (in the remedial paragraph), namely that the State party has not yet provided the author with an effective remedy. For the reasons stated above, we believe that by inviting the author to submit a section 50 application, the State party has provided him with an effective remedy to review the expulsion decision. As a result, the State party has already complied in our opinion with the Committee’s Views, and we fear that by siding with the author in questioning the availability of proceedings under section 50 of the Aliens Act — the main legal framework under Danish law for reviewing expulsion orders — the majority has, regrettably, only complicated the ability of the State party to comply with its obligations under the Covenant. 18