CCPR/C/133/D/3212/2018 Advance unedited version 4.3 The State party provides thorough information on the holdings adopted by its domestic authorities. With regard to the proceedings before the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the State party notes that while the decision-maker accepted that the author’s father and brother were deceased, he did not accept that they had been killed in 2000 and in the manner described in the author’s written or oral statements. 8 The decision-maker also rejected the author’s claims concerning past mistreatment by Sri Lankan authorities as inconsistent and unconvincing. Aside from the inconsistencies, the decision-maker also concluded that the author’s allegation that he was of interest to Sri Lankan authorities was undermined by the author’s own evidence that upon returning to Sri Lanka from Malaysia in 2008, he was immigration cleared within one hour and permitted to leave the airport without incident. The decision-maker further held that the author fabricated his claim that officers of the Criminal Investigation Department visited his mother in Sri Lanka in September 2012, while the author was residing in Australia. Furthermore, based on the available information, the decision-maker concluded that the risk of harm to the author on account of him being returned as a failed asylum seeker was remote. In the appeals procedure, the Refugee Review Tribunal shared the Department’s concerns over the author’s credibility and confirmed the first-instance decision. 4.4 Regarding the alleged violation of articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant, the State party submits that not all interference with family life is unlawful and that a State party may require, under its laws, the departure of persons who remain in its territory beyond limited duration permits. The fact that a child is born, or that by operation of law such a child receives citizenship either at birth or at a later time, is not sufficient alone to consider a proposed deportation of one or both parents arbitrary. Relying on the Committee’s jurisprudence,9 the State party argues that under the Covenant, there is significant scope for States parties to enforce their immigration policy and to require departure of unlawfully present persons. The State party further notes that the requirement to provide for protection of the family is subject to reasonable measures, consistent with the State Party’s right to control the entry of noncitizens into its territory. In respect of the author’s requests for ministerial intervention, the State party notes that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection considered the author’s situation and determined that his claims did not meet the guidelines for Ministerial intervention and therefore finalized the requests for Ministerial intervention without referral. The State party accepts that family reunification in the author’s case is not possible in Australia or Sri Lanka in the foreseeable future, having regard to the operation of Australia’s immigration laws, combined with the State party’s recognition that the author’s wife is unable to safely return to Sri Lanka in the immediate future. It submits, however, that the interference with the author’s right to family in the present case is lawful and non-arbitrary because it was taken in accordance with Australia’s immigration laws in pursuit of the legitimate aim of managing Australia’s borders and its humanitarian and migration programs. The State party therefore concludes that the author’s claims are without merit. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 1 November 2019, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 The author informs the Committee that he wishes to withdraw his complaint inasmuch as it concerns the alleged violation of article 7 of the Covenant and submits his comments only in relation to articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant. 5.3 The author underlines that the State party did not contest the admissibility of his complaint under articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant and that there has been an interference with his rights under these articles. Relying on the Committee’s jurisprudence, he submits that the State party’s recollection of the Committee’s guiding principles, as it appears in its observations, is incomplete.10 He further reiterates that he had been unable to join his wife’s 8 9 10 4 The author provided supporting documents that were inconsistent with statements made in his written account concerning the date of death of his relatives and the cause of their death. The State party refers to Winata v. Australia (CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000), para. 7.3. The author refers to Winata v Australia and A.B. v. Canada and supplements the citation made by the State party concerning para. 7.3 and para. 8.7 of these decisions, respectively.