CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 scheduled for 13 May 2013. On 1 May 2013, the author was personally informed that his return to Afghanistan was scheduled for 13 May 2013.3 The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party’s decision to expel him permanently from Denmark constitutes a breach of his rights under articles 2, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. He emphasizes that inadequate consideration has been given to his right to a family life with his children and his family ties in Denmark. In that connection, the author also makes reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In that context, he submits that since he was a minor when he committed the offences, the Court’s decision to expel him permanently from Denmark is against the principle of the best interests of the child.4 He notes that the members of the jury were divided in their opinion: 13 jury members out of a total of 24 voted in favour of his deportation to Afghanistan. The author argues that a significant minority of jury members (11) found that although the crimes committed were serious, greater importance should have been given to the fact that the author was a minor at the time of the commission of the offences and that he had no ties with Afghanistan. 3.2 The author maintains that although the provisions on the rights of the child, as specified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, cannot be considered as a direct legal instrument to be invoked for a decision by the Human Rights Committee, their content can nevertheless contribute to the interpretation and understanding of what constitutes a violation under article 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.5 3.3 The author submits that, despite the severe restrictions placed upon him since his release on 6 February 2008, he has managed to maintain a family life – although he could not live permanently with his family, nor provide economic support, which led to divorce in 2009. At the moment, the author has a good relationship with his children, and sees them regularly. His expulsion to Afghanistan and permanent entry ban for Denmark would therefore constitute a violation of his right to family life under article 23 of the Covenant. In this context, the author states that he only speaks Danish and all his relatives reside in Denmark. 3.4 The author submits that his children were born after the Supreme Court decision of 19 August 2005, which upheld the judgement of the Eastern High Court. He therefore maintains that the State party has violated his children’s rights under articles 23 and 24 of the Covenant by maintaining the deportation order, which, pursuant to section 50 of the Aliens Act, cannot be reconsidered again, as they cannot be expected to follow him to Afghanistan. He explains that his children are Danish nationals, who do not speak Pashto nor have any ties with Afghanistan. 3.5 The author argues that the State party’s legislation fails to provide remedies to adequately reconsider expulsion orders when a material change in the subject’s 3 4 5 The author was not returned to Afghanistan as scheduled, owing to the interim measures requested by the Committee. He remains remanded in custody, pursuant to article 35(1)(i) of the Aliens Act, pending return. See Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 3, para. 1. The author recalls the Committee’s Views adopted on 22 July 2010 in the case of Mohamed ElHichou v. Denmark, communication No. 1554/2007. He also refers to the judgement dated 11 July 2002 of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Amrollahi v. Denmark, application no. 56811/00, in which a violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was found, since the expulsion of the applicant to Iran would have been disproportionate to the aims pursued, in view of the de facto impossibility for the applicant and his family to continue their family life outside Denmark. 5