16 K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION expulsion of aliens. The Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and, in pursuance of their task of maintaining public order, Contracting States have the power to expel an alien convicted of criminal offences. However, their decisions in this field must, in so far as they may interfere with a right protected under paragraph 1 of Article 8, be in accordance with the law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society (see, for example, De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 77, ECHR 2012). 66. In the present case the Court is prepared to accept for the purposes of the present decision that the applicant’s exclusion from the United Kingdom interfered with his private and family life in the United Kingdom. However, in light of the findings set out at paragraphs 62 and 63, it would appear that his exclusion did not have a significant adverse impact on his right to respect for his family and private life or upon his reputation. Having regard to this limited nature of the interference, and SIAC’s clear findings concerning the extent of his terrorism-related activities, the Court does not consider that the decision to exclude the applicant from the United Kingdom was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued: namely, the protection of the public from the threat of terrorism. 3. Conclusion 67. Accordingly, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and, as such, must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 3(a) of the Convention. B. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention read together with Article 8 68. The applicant further complained under Article 14 read together with Article 8 that he was treated differently from British citizens considered a threat to national security who did not hold a second nationality; and from non-national residents who enjoyed a suspensory appeal against the revocation of leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Article 14 provides as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 69. The Court notes that in the proceedings before the domestic courts the applicant did not argue that he was treated differently from a British citizen who posed a threat to national security. Before the High Court he argued that he had been treated differently from someone who had never held British citizenship (see paragraph 11 above), and before the Court of