AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 23 indicative of the lack of an emotional or family link between Mr Al-Nashif and his children. 108. In any event there had been no interference with the applicants' family life. Mr Al-Nashif and Mrs Saleh did not have strong links with Bulgaria where they had arrived as adults and had only spent seven years. Mrs Saleh had not worked in Bulgaria, her contacts had been limited exclusively to persons of Arab origin and she had not made efforts to integrate. The children, the second and the third applicants, were of a young and adaptable age. Despite their Bulgarian citizenship it was obvious that their legal status would be affected by the status of their parents as they were in their parents' custody. Furthermore, the fact that Mrs Saleh and the children had left Bulgaria in June 2000 confirmed that they did not feel attached to Bulgaria. In the Government's submission there was no evidence of any obstacles against the family living in Syria or Jordan. The applicants' allegation that a return to Kuwait was impossible was not proved either. 109. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court considered that there had been an interference any such interference had been lawful and justified. 110. The deportation order had been issued in accordance with the relevant law and had pursued the aim of protecting national security. Although the law itself did not contain a definition of that term, the Framework National Security Concept adopted by Parliament in 1998 (see paragraph 83 above) clarified it. Moreover, Mr Al-Nashif had been warned against continuing his religious activities after his participation in the 1997 seminar and on other occasions. On the basis of the above the Government considered that the law was sufficiently clear and that Mr Al-Nashif had been able to understand the possible consequences of his acts. 111. In the Government's submission the interference was furthermore proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They stressed that an important aspect of the present case was the regional context in the Balkans where measures of active protection of religious tolerance were critical. In Bulgaria, in particular, owing to a number of factors - such as disruptions in community traditions caused by decades of totalitarianism - the religious consciousness of the population was currently unstable and unsettled. Communities in general, and the Muslim community in particular, were therefore susceptible to influences. It was necessary to protect them against Islamic fundamentalism. Against that background the authorities had been justified in classifying Mr Al-Nashif's acts as “unlawful religious activity ... encroaching on the national interests and the rights of the religious, ethnic and minority groups