CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 the author’s family will be able to work with Jamaican physicians and mental health organizations to ensure that he has stable accommodation and a stable supply of necessary medication. 4.6 At the time of deportation, appropriate arrangements were made for the author’s reception in Jamaica, including for his stay in a community group home for the first month after his arrival. His family members in Canada were provided with contact information for the group home where he would be staying. 4.7 According to the State party, this view is substantiated by the support the author actually received upon arrival in Jamaica. Several months after his deportation, Canada received information that, upon arrival, the author spent between three and four weeks at Bellevue Hospital as an inpatient. When stabilized, he was released to the Open Arms Center, which looks after the mentally ill and homeless. After several days, family members from Franklin Town took the author home with them. 4.8 The State party submits that, according to the author’s own evidence, access to a relevant psychotropic drug is available for free with the government mental health services, and the author’s case rests entirely on the alleged unavailability of family support in Jamaica. Although the State party has no information on the identity of the family members who took him home with them, the fact is that the author does have family in Jamaica that can make arrangements for his continued care. Moreover, his sisters and his niece in Canada, who have demonstrated an interest in his welfare and willingness to assist him, can travel to Jamaica to make arrangements for him, or even do so remotely. Consequently, the State party rejects the author’s assertion that he has no family support in Jamaica. 4.9 The State party adds that there is a growing number of governmental and nongovernmental organizations in Jamaica that assist deportees and the homeless. Bellevue Hospital provides residential care for the acutely mentally ill who need specialized care. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to support the author’s claim that he would face a “real risk” of a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant in Jamaica;16 that claim should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.10 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comments Nos. 15, 16 and 19, and, recalling that Governments enjoy wide discretion when expelling aliens from their territory, it submits that articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant do not guarantee that a person will never be removed if that would affect that person’s family life. The deportation of an individual — with the concomitant disruption to his or her family relations — is permissible, so long as the decision is authorized by law and is not manifestly arbitrary. 4.11 The author had not lived with any members of his family in Canada for the previous 20 years, and they played little or no role in his treatment or the management of his condition. It was only when he was facing deportation that his niece offered to accommodate him. The minimal disruption to the author’s family was outweighed by the State’s interest in removing him. The removal was reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the crimes and the danger posed to the public. The State party concludes that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 17 and 23. 16 8 The State party distinguishes the present case from the facts in communication No. 900/1991, C. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 October 2002, in which the Committee found a violation of article 7 of the Covenant should the author (a mentally ill person) be removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran; it also refers to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, Application 44599/98 (2001).