CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This does not mean that any shortcoming in the balancing between competing interests automatically amounts to a violation of article 7. But if the treatment of an individual reaches the threshold proscribed by article 7, such as in the present case, a violation is to be found. 4. This line of reasoning is in accordance with the Committee’s established jurisprudence on the absolute nature of article 7. The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment must neither be subjected to nor equated with a simple proportionality analysis. This is imperative to preserve the unambiguous and inalienable nature of article 7. The Committee’s Views in the present case are based on this understanding and I am confident that they will continue to be guided by it in the future. denial of justice. See communication No. 934/2000, G. v. Canada, Views adopted on 8 August 2000, para. 4.3. But the issue is different from the present one where the author alleged a violation of article 7. Here the Committee needs to determine whether the decision leading to deportation constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This determination differs from the issue of arbitrariness and denial of justice. 17