CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 subject to a permanent re-entry ban, in spite of his youth, ties with persons living in this country and limited ties with his country of origin. The High Court observed that the proportionality test to be made under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights could not lead to any other result”. 5.7 On 14 April 2010, the District Court of Glostrup convicted the author of additional serious violations of the Criminal Code, on the grounds that he and his two brothers had deprived a person of his liberty, seriously assaulted him, threatened him and exercised duress against him using a loaded pistol, and that, on another occasion, he and his brothers had threatened another person. The author was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and nine months, which included the unserved balance of 670 days owing to his release on parole on 24 July 2007. The author was also order to pay DKr 20,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the first victim. That sentence was upheld by the judgement of the Eastern High Court on 28 August 2010. 5.8 The State party maintains that the offences committed by the author are extremely serious and, altogether, the author has exhibited extensive criminal conduct during his stay in Denmark. 5.9 In assessing whether due consideration has been given to the author’s family in the expulsion proceedings, the State party attaches crucial importance to the fact that neither the author nor his former spouse have had any form of justified expectation of being able to have a family life in Denmark since the expulsion decision was rendered in 2005. The author married in 2006, and the author’s children were born on 3 November 2008 and 4 September 2010, respectively. Those dates fall after the date (19 August 2005) of the Supreme Court decision that upheld and rendered the expulsion decision final. Moreover, the author’s children were born after both the District Court and the High Court had reviewed his case, under section 50 of the Aliens Act, as to whether the expulsion decision should stand. According to the information available, the author has never lived together with his children. 5.10 Regarding the merits, the State party notes that the author relies on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Amrollahi v. Denmark.9 However, the State party considers that there is a decisive difference as the applicant in that case had commenced a relationship in 1992 with a woman, they had their first child in October 1996, and they married in September 1997, one week before his conviction. The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of El Boujaïdi v. France,10 in which the Court stated that the question of whether the applicant had a private and family life within the meaning of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be determined in the light of the situation when the exclusion order became final. Thus, in that case, the applicant could not plead his relationship with a woman and the fact that he was the father of her child, since those circumstances came into being long after the date of the final expulsion order. The State party considers that, in the present case, the author’s former spouse knew about the offence and sentence at the time when she entered into the family relationship, and consequently neither the author nor her could have had any justified expectation of being able to have and continue a family life in Denmark. The State party finds that the Committee’s views in El-Hichou v. Denmark,11 to which the author also refers in his communication, could not lead to any other result because that case concerned 9 10 11 8 European Court of Human Rights, Amrollahi v. Denmark, application No. 56811/00, judgment of 11 July 2002. European Court of Human Rights, El Boujaïdi v. France, application No. 25613/94, judgment of 26 September 1997. Communication No. 1554/2007, El-Hichou v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2010.