1. The Commission uses a very elaborate “even if” reasoning, stressing that the applicant has not explained clearly how he considers that there might have been a violation of the Convention and that he may not have exhausted all domestic remedies. The Commission, however, assumed in the applicant’s favour, that the facts of the case are as he wished the Adjudicator to accept them, that he has sent money from England to India in support of his mother, his brother and his sister and that he has exhausted the domestic remedies.
2. But all the same, the Commission stresses, even though the applicant’s mother, brother and sister may thus have been dependent upon him it is clear that he and they have lived apart in different countries for 19 out of the past 20 years and that consequently, there existed no family life within the meaning of Article 8 ECHR.