Baban v Australia (HRC, 2003)

Violations: ICCPR art 9(4), ICCPR art 9(1)

Remedy's assessment: Unremedied

The UN says:

The State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including compensation.

HRC (2003)

An Iraqi-Kurd asylum seeker Heman Baban1 and his infant son arrived in Australia without travel documents and were detained in an immigration detention centre in Sydney. His refugee claims were rejected. On the day his appeal was denied by the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia, he petitioned the HRC. The Committee issued Interim Views seeking a stay of deportation; Australia complied.

The HRC subsequently found the Babans’ detention was arbitrary and not subject to judicial review in breach of article 9 of the ICCPR. The Committee required Australia to provide Mr Baban and his son with ‘an effective remedy, including compensation’. However, in 2001, after two years in detention, the pair escaped. After a period in hiding, they left the country and continue to seek asylum elsewhere.

The HRC has deemed Australia’s response unsatisfactory and regards follow-up dialogue as ongoing.

Barrister Nicholas Poynder has had no contact with the author since 2012.

For source details, see Remedy Australia's 2014 Follow-up Report (PDF 1.3Mb).

See similar cases: