CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 4.5 On 25 October 2013, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, denied the State party’s request to lift the interim measures. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 9 October 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It rejects the author’s claims as insufficiently substantiated and considers that he has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under articles 2, 13, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. The communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. 5.2 The State party also submits that the author has not sufficiently established that his return to Afghanistan would be contrary to articles 2, 13, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. Expulsion decision 5.3 Regarding the author’s claims that the expulsion decision is contrary to articles 2, 23 and 24, first of all, the State party observes that the Covenant does not, per se, guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and, in pursuance of maintaining public order, States have the power to expel an alien convicted of criminal offences. However, that power must be exercised subject to international treaty obligations, including those arising from the Covenant. 5.4 The State party maintains that, according to the Committee’s case law, deportation of family members cannot be regarded as either unlawful or arbitrary under articles 17 and 23 when the deportation order is made under law in furtherance of a legitimate State interest and when due consideration is given in the deportation proceedings to the deportee’s family connections. In this regard, the State party refers to the Committee’s Views in Stewart v. Canada.8 5.5 The State party also quotes the relevant domestic legislation, namely, sections 49(1), 23(1)(i), 22(1)(iv) and 32(2)(iv) of the Aliens Act, which expressly state that an alien who has been lawfully resident in Denmark for more than three years may be permanently expelled if convicted of certain specific criminal offences. The State party thus notes that the expulsion decision is clearly based upon the law. Furthermore, in the State party’s view, the expulsion decision is necessary in the public interest to protect public safety from further criminal activity by the author and thus in furtherance of a legitimate State interest. 5.6 The State party emphasizes the fact that the Supreme Court judgement of 19 August 2005 upheld the judgement of the Eastern High Court, which convicted the author of violating the Criminal Code, as he had been complicit, over a period of about three months, in three completed robberies and two counts of attempted robbery, four of those robberies being committed against cash transit vans, with total proceeds just under DKr 1.2 million. The State party adds that, despite the fact that the author was only 17 years old at the time of the crime, he was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment. The sentence was concurrent with the suspended part of the sentence of imprisonment for one year and six months imposed on the author on 2 September 2002 for robbery, theft, attempted fraud, criminal damage, unlawful possession of firearms and driving without a driver’s licence. The State party further notes that, “in its expulsion decision, the High Court attached importance to the fact that the author’s previous and present criminal activities were so serious that, considering his relatively short stay in Denmark, it must be considered necessary, in order to prevent further criminal offences and to protect society, to expel him, 8 See Communication No. 538/1993, Stewart v. Canada (note 6 above). 7