128. By reiterating Botswana’s obligation to protect the family, the Complainants argue that any interference with the right to family can only be justified by a complete absence of any real pressing social need to expel the victim from Botswana, and the Respondent State has not shown that the victim’s expulsion could be justified by a pressing need to protect public order or national security. 129. The Complainants recall that the victim had been a law abiding resident for 15 years and had played an important role in bringing up his daughter. Despite this fact, there is no indication that the impact of the expulsion order on him or his daughter and their family life was in any way taken into account, still less minimised, by authorities when they deported him. On the contrary, the Respondent State denied him an opportunity to finalise arrangements for his daughter before being expelled, as he was arrested immediately after the High Court’s decision and expelled later that day. The hasty way of his deportation, in the circumstances of the case, according to the Complainant, amounted to a gratuitous interference with his right to family life. Alleged Violation of Article 2 130. The Complainants claim that the crux of the case lies in the fact that the victim held and expressed political views that were critical of the political establishment in the Respondent State, and specifically of presidential succession. They submit that had it not been for the nature of his political opinions, his rights under the Charter would not have been violated, adding that his political views singled him out for discriminatory treatment at the hands of the authorities. 131. They aver that the victim did not hold a position where he had access to sensitive material of potentially damaging nature to national security and he was not required to adopt a politically neutral position as, perhaps a civil servant may have been, and even in such cases, it has been held that 19 such differential treatment is generally not acceptable . 132. The Complainants in conclusion urge the Commission to adopt strict scrutiny of discrimination on the grounds of political opinion, given that pluralism and diversity are fundamental ingredients of any democratic society. They further urge the Commission to demand very weighty reasons to be given to justify different treatment on the basis of political opinion, by taking into consideration that no reasons have been provided by the Respondent State in this matter. 133. The Commission notes that the arguments raised in the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Centre for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria are already reflected in the submissions of the Complainants. Respondent State’s Submissions on the Merits 134. The Respondent State submits that the victim at no stage during the proceedings at the High Court of Botswana or before the African Commission alleged bad faith on the part of the Government of Botswana, but merely attacks the process by which he was declared a prohibited immigrant. 135. The State contends that the essence of the Complainants’ argument is the failure of the Government of Botswana to abide by its treaty obligations, which taken to its logical end, implies bad faith on the part of the government. Though not disputing the commitment of the Charter to human rights, the Respondent State contends that this does not imply a blanket application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda under international law as provided in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties which provides that “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”. 136. According to the Respondent State, the exception to this principle is that no automatic duty attaches to parties, more specifically Botswana, to carry out all the provisions of the Charter. They aver that when States concluding an agreement do not have in mind the creation of legal obligations, but aim only to declare some common intent, the principle of pacta sunt servanda does not apply. 137. In support of its argument, the Respondent State submits that a close scrutiny of paragraphs 3 , 4 and 10 of the preamble to the African Charter reveal that parties did not intend creating legal obligations in drawing up the Charter. 138. The Respondent State further states that Botswana is a sovereign State guided by principles of democracy and has since independence striven to protect, maintain and promote human rights values,