206. In the same vein, the Commission in Rencontre africaine pour la defense des droits de l’Homme 54 v Zambia ruled the deportation of individuals including their arbitrary detention and deprivation of the right to be heard a flagrant violation of the Charter. 207. Similarly, in the present case, the deportation of the victim without being provided with a chance to be heard is justifiable neither on the basis of domestic laws nor with the pretext of national security. 208. Based on the above analysis the Commission is of the view that the existence and application of Sections 11(6) and 36 of the Botswana Immigration Act has violated Articles 7.1 and 12.4 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 18 209. The Complainants state that the expulsion of the victim had a drastic impact on his family life and daughter as the family home in Botswana was his only home established for 15 years. He was forced to separate from his daughter Clara, then 17 years old, who was not in a position to follow him given the critical stage of her studies. This separation, he submits, gravely affected her as she was very close to her father, who obviously could not return to visit her. They submit further that the victim was denied 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, the Complainants conclude amounted to a gratuitous interference with his right to family life. 210. In its submission, the Respondent State does not address this allegations made by the Complainants. 211. Article 18 of the African Charter provides that: ‘1. The family shall be the natural unit of society. It shall be protected by the State which shall take care of its physical health and moral. 2. The State shall have the duty to assist the family which is the custodian of morals and traditional values recognised by the community’. 212. Article 18 of the Charter imposes a positive obligation on the State towards the family. The State has the obligation to assist the family towards meeting its needs and interests and to protect the same institution from abuse of any kind by its own officials and organs and by third parties. In exercising the positive obligations, the State exercises a negative obligation which is to refrain from violating the rights and interests of the family. 213. In the present Communication, the sudden deportation of the victim with no justification, knowing fully that he will be separated from his minor daughter who was living with him runs counter to the protection States are required to give to the family under Article 18. There is nothing to justify the deportation, there is nothing to show that the Respondent State took measures to provide a safety net to the daughter after the deportation of the victim, and the hasty manner in which the deportation was carried out means adequate arrangements could not be made for the victim’s daughter. The victim was given only 56 hours to make his own arrangements for his departure. For a person who has legally stayed in the country for 15 years, 56 hours is clearly inadequate to make sufficient family arrangements, especially for a female minor who has no other relative in the country. 214. This attitude of ignoring the interest of the family during the deportation process was 55 condemned by the Commission inModise v Botswana where the Commission found a violation of Article 18(1) of the Charter as the deportation order deprived the Complainant of his family, and his 56 family, of his support. In Amnesty International v Zambia , the Commission held that the forcible deportation of political activists and expulsion of foreigners was in violation of the duties to protect and assist the family, as it forcibly broke up the family unit. 215. Based on the above, the Commission is of the view that the deportation order and the way it was executed violatedArticle 18.1 and Article 18.2 of the Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 2 216. The Complainants claim that the victim was expelled simply because he held and expressed political views that were critical of the political establishment in the Respondent State, and specifically of Presidential Succession. They submit that but for the nature of his political opinions, his rights under