CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 a minor who had been refused family reunification, and because the Committee’s reasoning in its assessment of the case was very specific. The State party maintains that due consideration has been given to the author’s family in the expulsion proceedings. 5.11 The State party further draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that the author states in his communication that he was “originally able to speak Pashto, but unable to read and write the language, but he is now unable to speak other languages than Danish”. However, according to the opinion, dated 17 July 2004, of the Danish Immigration Service for the purpose of assessing the expulsion decision by the Eastern High Court, the author had stated that he spoke Pashto. He repeated this before the Copenhagen City Court, when it heard his request for revocation of the expulsion decision in September 2007. Thus, the State party considers that there are no language barriers to the author’s ability to reintegrate in Afghan society. 5.12 Regarding the author’s claim that inadequate consideration had been given in the expulsion decision to his age at the time of the offence, the State party refers to the fact that it follows from section 26(1)(ii) of the Aliens Act that the age of the alien is one of the criteria taken into account in an expulsion decision. Furthermore, it is expressly stated in the Eastern High Court judgement of 1 March 2005 that the jurors had taken this criterion into account as they attached importance to the fact that the defendant’s previous and present activities were so serious that, considering his relatively short stay in Denmark, it was considered necessary, in order to prevent further criminal offences and to protect society, to expel him from the country subject to a permanent re-entry ban, despite his youth, ties with persons living in the country and limited ties with his country of origin. Possibility of revocation of the expulsion decision 5.13 With regard to the author’s claims under article 13 of the Covenant that it is impossible to alter an expulsion decision if it has already been reviewed once under section 50 of the Aliens Act, the State party notes that, by letter of 3 April 2007, the Commissioner of Copenhagen Police submitted a request from the author for revocation of the expulsion decision to the Copenhagen City Court, pursuant to section 50 of the Aliens Act. The Court dismissed the request on 11 September 2007. This was upheld by an order of the Eastern High Court on 22 May 2008. The return of the author to Afghanistan could not be implemented until 13 May 2013. Consequently, five years elapsed from the time of the High Court review under section 50 of the Aliens Act until the return could be implemented. 5.14 The State party argues that section 50(1) of the Aliens Act concerns the right of an alien expelled by judgement for a criminal offence to have the expulsion decision of a court reviewed again with reference to material change in the alien’s circumstances. The provision ensures that an expelled alien has the right to have a judicial review of the importance of circumstances which may have arisen after the expulsion decision was made and which, if they had existed at the time of the expulsion decision, might have led to another result. The purpose of the condition specifying that a request cannot be made earlier than six months before the date of the expected enforcement of the expulsion is to ensure that material changes in the relevant circumstances that might arise in the period before the expected enforcement of the expulsion can be taken into account at the judicial review under section 50 of the Aliens Act. The State party clarifies that the date of the expected enforcement of the expulsion would normally be the date of release on parole. 9