A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 page 8 14. Applying this standard, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has stated that detention and deportation proceedings require “as broad as possible” an interpretation of due process requirements and include the right to a meaningful defence and to be represented by an attorney. 15. Because United States immigration laws impose mandatory deportation without a discretionary hearing where family and community ties can be considered, these laws fail to protect the right to private life, in violation of the applicable human rights standards. 16. Article 16, paragraph 3, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 23, paragraph 1, of the ICCPR state that “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Furthermore, article 23, paragraph 3 states that the right of men and women to marry and found a family shall be recognized. This right includes the right to live together. Article 17, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family or correspondence …”. 17. As the international body entrusted with the power to interpret the ICCPR and decide cases brought under its Optional Protocol, the Human Rights Committee has explicitly stated that family unity imposes limits on the power of States to deport. 18. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man features several provisions relevant to the question of deportation of non-citizens with strong family ties. Article V states that “Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon … his private and family life.” Under article VI, “Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefor.” The American Convention on Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory, contains analogous provisions. The case of Wayne Smith and Hugo Armendáriz v. United States of America, which came before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2006 relies on several of these provisions to challenge the United States policy of deporting non-citizens with criminal convictions without regard to family unity. In light of these international standards, the United States has fallen far behind the practice of providing protection for family unity in deportation proceedings. 19. Moreover, the rights of children to live together with their parents are violated by the lack of deportation procedures in which the State’s interest in deportation is balanced against the rights of the children. United States mandatory deportation laws harm the human rights of children of non-citizen parents. 20. United States restrictions on relief for refugees convicted of crimes violate the Convention and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.3 The United States provides two forms of relief for refugees fleeing persecution - withholding of removal, which provides bare protection against refoulement, and more robust asylum relief, which provides a pathway to permanent 3 Although petitioners’ cases do not involve claims for refugee protection, a discussion of the effect of United States immigration laws on non-citizens with criminal convictions would be incomplete without an exploration of the effect of the laws on non-citizen refugees.