39 183. With respect to the effects that deportation has on family life, the Commission wrote that the fact that persons subject to deportation proceedings are not permitted to present a reasonable defense in administrative and judicial courts and no account is taken of such humanitarian considerations as the length of time they have resided in the country, their family ties in the country, the potential harm that deportation could mean for that person’s next of kin because of the separation it would inevitably occasion, the lack of ties in the country of origin, and other considerations, lead to a violation of rights such as the right to protection against arbitrary interference in the family, the right to protection of the 166 family and protection of children. 184. On this same point, the case law of the European Court has recognized that the deportation of a person from a country in which his next of kin reside can constitute arbitrary interference in that person’s right to a family life. The European Court has held that if a deportation can interfere with the family, in a democratic society that measure must be necessary, i.e., dictated by some overriding social need and proportional to the legitimate end being sought. So the first issue to be examined is 167 whether there is a family life. An individual’s family life presupposes the existence of a family . 185. The Human Rights Committee has held that under international law a State has the authority to deport a resident non-citizen in furtherance of a legitimate state interest, provided due consideration is given in the deportation proceedings to the deportee’s family connections and the 168 suffering that the deportation may cause within the family. 186. For its part, the Inter-American Court has held that [i]n principle, the family should provide the best protection of children against abuse, abandonment and exploitation. And the State is under the obligation not only to decide and directly implement measures to protect children, but also to favor, in the broadest manner, development and strengthening of the family nucleus. In this regard, “[r]ecognition of the family as a natural and fundamental component of society,” with the right to “protection by society and the State,” is a fundamental principle of International Human Rights Law, enshrined in Articles 16(3) of the Universal Declaration, VI of the American Declaration, 23(1) of the International Covenant on Civil 169 and Political Rights and 17(1) of the American Convention. 187. The Inter-American Court also observed that the Riad Guidelines state that the family is the central unit responsible for the primary socialization of children, governmental and social efforts to preserve the integrity of the family, including the extended family, should be pursued. The society has a responsibility to assist the family in providing care and protection and in ensuring the physical and mental well-being of children [...]” (twelfth paragraph). The State must also safeguard stability of the household, facilitating, through its policies, provision of adequate 170 171 services for the families, ensuring conditions that enable attainment of a decent life. 166 IACHR, Report No. 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz et al. (United States), July 12, 2010, paragraph 48. 167 Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, C. Vs. Bélgica. 24 de junio de 1996, No. 35/1995/541/627, párr. 31; Véase, Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, Beldjoudi Vs. Francia. Sentencia de 26 de marzo de 1992, No. 12083/86, párr. 74; Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos Nasri Vs. Francia, Sentencia de 13 de julio de 1995, No. 19465/92, párr. 41; Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, Boughanemi Vs. Francia, Sentencia de 24 de abril de 1996, No. 22070/93, Rep. 1996-II, Fasc. 8, párr. 41; Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, Bouchelkia Vs. Francia, Sentencia de 1 de enero de 1997, No. 230078/93, Rep. 1997-I, fasc. 28, párr. 48; Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, Boudjaidii Vs. Francia, Sentencia de 26 de septiembre de 1997, Rep. 1997-VI, fasc. 51, párr. 39; Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, Boujlifa Vs. Francia, Sentencia de 21 de octubre de 1997, 122/1996/741/940, Rep. 1997-VI, fasc. 54, párr. 42. 168 Human Rights Committee, Stewart v. Canada, Views of December 1996, Communication No. 538/1993, paragraph 12.10; see also Human Rights Committee, Hendrick Winata and So Lan Li v. Australia. Views of July 26, 2001, Communication No. 930/2000, paragraph 7.3. 169 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paragraph 66. 170 Riyadh Guideline No. 13 provides that: Continúa…