Note that committees can record actual or potential violations.
Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.ICCPR art 9(4)
A Cambodian man known as ‘A’ arrived in Australia by boat in 1989 with his wife and children. The family was detained for more than four years until the success of Mrs A’s refugee claim. The HRC found that Australia’s system of ‘indefinite and prolonged’ mandatory detention constitutes arbitrary detention. The family’s right to have their detention reviewed by a court, and their right to an effective remedy, were also violated. Australia rejected the Committee’s interpretation of the ICCPR and refused to compensate the A family.
Read more on A v Australia.
An Iraqi-Kurd asylum seeker and his infant son were detained and his refugee claim was rejected. The HRC requested a stay of deportation; Australia complied. The HRC found the Babans’ detention was arbitrary and not subject to judicial review, and recommended compensation. They have not been compensated.
Read more on Baban v Australia.
A family of Hazara asylum seekers claiming to be from Afghanistan was detained on arrival in Australia. Australia determined that the Bakhtiyaris’ claim to be from Afghanistan was not credible; doubt about their origins undermined their refugee claim. The HRC requested a stay of deportation. In its Final Views, the HRC decided that the long-term detention of the family was arbitrary, beyond judicial review, and had not been ‘guided by the best interests of the children’. Further potential violations were found. It proposed that Australia should pay appropriate compensation for these violations. Australia deported the family to Pakistan in 2004, without compensation.
Read more on Bakhtiyari & Bakhtiyari v Australia.
‘C’ was detained on arrival in Australia in 1992 and accepted as a refugee in 1995. He acquired serious mental illness in detention, and his threatening behaviour while in a delusional state led to his being sentenced to 3½ years’ gaol. With psychiatric care, he made ‘dramatic’ improvement and was deemed no longer dangerous. However, as a non-citizen with a custodial sentence exceeding 12 months, he was slated for deportation. The HRC accepted that detention had been the cause of mental illness in this man with no psychiatric history, that his mental illness was the ‘direct cause’ of his offending and that, with appropriate medical care, he was unlikely to re-offend. As well as being arbitrary and lacking judicial review, his detention became ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ once it was evident that it was causing his deteriorating mental health. To deport Mr C would also breach article 7. The Committee recommended compensation. Mr C ultimately obtained a visa to remain in Australia, in accord with Committee Views, but he has not been compensated.
Read more on C v Australia.
Five authors, refugees from Iran, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, were detained on arrival by boat in Australian territorial waters. They were assessed by Australian authorities as refugees, but also deemed a security threat. The basis of their security assessment was kept secret, meaning the authors were unable to challenge the merits of the assessment nor the justification of their detention.
The Committee accepted that their detention was arbitrary (art 9(1)), lacking periodic re-evaluation and judicial review (art 9(4)) and that the arbitrary and indefinite nature of their detention, as well as the conditions of their detention, inflicted “serious, irreversible psychological harm” (art 7). It recommended rehabilitation and compensation for the authors and non-repetition measures.
Read more on FJ et al v Australia.
Thirty-six Tamils, including 3 children, plus a Rohingya man from Burma, applied for asylum in Australia and were detained. They were later accepted by Australia as refugees, but were not released from detention because ASIO determined that they represented an undisclosed security risk. The HRC issued repeated requests concerning the authors’ mental health, which led to no discernible improvement in their conditions. The HRC found the authors had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary detention, denial of habeas corpus and, for 5 of the authors, a denial of the right to be informed of the reasons for one’s arrest. It recommended the authors be released, given rehabilitation and compensation. Further, Australia ‘should review its migration legislation’ to respect the prohibitions on inhuman and degrading treatment and arbitrary detention. As at May 2017, two of the 37 authors remained in immigration detention. (The children and their parents were released in 2013).
Read more on FKAG et al v Australia.
Hew Griffiths, an Australian permanent resident, was indicted in the US for breach of copyright for making proprietary software and computer games freely available online, without financial gain.
Mr Griffiths was arrested and held on remand for periods totalling more than 3 years before he was extradited to face the charge of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 51 months in prison, taking account of the time already served.
The Human Rights Committee found that Mr Griffiths’ disproportionately long and unjustified detention constituted arbitrary detention, and that he was denied the opportunity to challenge his detention.
Mr Griffiths is entitled to compensation, including his legal costs. Australia ought to review its Extradition Act to prevent future violations of articles 2 and 9.
Read more on Griffiths v Australia.
The 9 authors of this communication – 6 Tamils, including one child, who fled the conflict in Sri Lanka in 2009 or shortly thereafter, plus 2 Burmese and a Kuwaiti man – arrived in Australia and were detained. All were accepted by Australia as refugees. However, they were not released from detention because ASIO determined they were an undisclosed security risk. The HRC found the authors suffered inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary detention and denial of habeas corpus, recommending they all be released, rehabilitated and compensated. Further, Australia ‘should review its migration legislation to ensure its conformity with the requirements of articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant’. All 9 authors have reportedly been released; none is known to have been compensated nor provided with rehabilitation services.
Read more on MMM et al v Australia.
A young Bangladeshi man fled his homeland fearing reprisals from a banned political party. Having been left at an orphanage as a child, Mr Shafiq has no identity papers; Bangladesh has no record of him and denies he is a citizen, rendering him stateless. Australia detained him on his arrival in 1999 and, disbelieving his refugee claim, tried unsuccessfully to deport him. Mr Shafiq, possibly Australia’s longest-serving detainee, became mentally ill in detention and acquired diabetes from a psychiatric medication he was given, rendering him insulin-dependent. The HRC found his detention was arbitrary and that he had been denied habeas corpus. It recommended he be released and compensated. After 7½ years in detention, Mr Shafiq was released, but he remains on a temporary visa under threat of deportation and has not been compensated.
Read more on Shafiq v Australia.
Eight unrelated young men from Iran, fearing persecution for a range of reasons, arrived in Australia and were detained. Each submitted a communication to the HRC, containing similar allegations concerning their treatment in detention and their fear of refoulement. Australia responded to all 8 cases together, and the HRC did the same, hence 8 independent communications became Shams et al. The Committee found that all had suffered arbitrary detention in excess of four years, had been denied habeas corpus and the right to remedy and that each should be compensated. Seven were ultimately found by Australia to be refugees, while the 8th was given a humanitarian visa. They have not been compensated.
Read more on Shams et al v Australia.