38 180. In the Commission’s view, the practice of expelling or deporting persons who have family ties in the country from which they are being expelled is one of the situations that most clearly captures the tension between the State sovereign power to determine who can enter and remain in the territory of a State, and the State’s obligations to protect the family and children. The States must strike a balance, particularly in situations in which expulsion or deportation can represent an arbitrary interference in family life and affect the best interests of the child. 181. When it addressed this matter, the Commission held that when exercising the right to expel aliens, States must have regard to certain protections which enshrine fundamental values of 163 democratic societies. In that regard, the Commission observed that while the state undoubtedly has the right and duty to maintain public order through the control of entry, residence and expulsion of removable aliens, that right must be balanced against the harm that may result to the rights of the individuals concerned in the particular case. In this regard, the Commission has also received submissions alleging that the right to family life is not sufficiently taken into account in removal proceedings, particularly where the removal of long term permanent residents is at issue. Given the nature of Articles V, VI and VII of the American Declaration, interpreted in relation to Canada’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where decisionmaking involves the potential separation of a family, the resulting interference with family life may only be justified where necessary to meet a pressing need to protect public order, and where the means are proportional to that end. The application of these criteria by various human rights supervisory bodies indicates that this balancing must be made on a case by case basis, and that the reasons justifying interference with family life must be very serious 164 indeed. 182. The Commission has commented that a reasoned judgment must be made that weighs the State’s legitimate interest in protecting and advancing the general welfare against the basic rights of non-citizens, such as the right to a family life. As the Commission wrote, “immigration policy must guarantee to all an individual decision with the guarantees of due process; it must respect the right to life, 165 physical and mental integrity, family, and the right of children to obtain special means of protection.” …continuation 1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence. 2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known. 3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests. 4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.. 163 IACHR, Report No. 63/08, Case 12.534, Andrea Mortlock (United States), July 25, 2008, paragraph 78. 164 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc.40 rev., February 28, 2000, paragraph 166. Citing. generally, Eur. Ct. H.R., Berrehab v. the Netherlands, Ser. A No. 138, 11 E.H.R.R. 322 (1988) (finding that enforcement of national immigration policy is not sufficient to override the need for contact between parent and child); Moustaquim v. Belgium, Ser. A No. 193, 13 E.H.R.R. 802 (1991) (holding that the need to protect public security in light of criminal acts committed when applicant was a minor did not override the fact that applicant had resided for almost the entirety of his life in France, and that all of his immediate family were there); see also Nasri v. France, Ser. A No. 322-B (1995); Beldjoudi v. France, Ser. A No. 234-A (1992); Chahal v. the United Kingdom, Reports 1996-V p. 1831 (1996): Gul v. Switzerland, 22 E.H.R.R. 93 (1996). 165 IACHR, Report No. 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz et al. (United States), July 12, 2010, paragraph 50; see, in general, IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc.40 rev., February 28, 2000.