Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
Click here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National
Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
Save the Children
Executive Summary
Save the Children
Children in Australia
Failure to incorporate international instruments into Australian law
Australia's non-refoulement obligations
Unlawful entry
Temporary Protection Visas
The best interests of the Child (Article 3)
The right to family life (Article 5)
Deprivation of Liberty (Article 37)
Unaccompanied children (Article 20)
Comparisons with overseas practice
Meeting our international obligations
1. Save the Children
Save the
Children is the world's largest independent child development organisation,
with 32 member countries and programs in over 100 countries. Save the
Children works for:
- a world which
respects and values each child
- a world which
listens to children and learns
- a world where
all children have hope and opportunity
As well as its programs
in Australia and the region, Save the Children Australia (SCA) has played
a vital role in the advocacy of children's rights in Australia. Such work
contributes to the development of public policy which acknowledges and
protects children's rights in Australia.
2. Children in
Australia
Although
other international obligations are also relevant to this issues facing
children seeking asylum, this paper will focus on The Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CROC) because of Save the Children's intrinsic connection
to the development and monitoring of Convention.
3. Failure to
incorporate international instruments into Australian law
In the absence of an integrated system within Australia to protect children's
rights, SCA sees the failure to incorporate international treaties into
Australian law and regulations as a serious shortcoming in protecting
the rights of children in immigration detention.
4. Australia's
non-refoulement obligations
SCA is concerned that Australia may be in breach of its obligations not
to return asylum seekers to a country where they would be at risk through
its policy of screening asylum seekers upon arrival and of attempting
to turn back vessels which seek to enter Australian territory.
5. Unlawful entry
SCA believes that Australia is in breach of non-discrimination principles
in Article 2 of the Convention on the grounds of its different treatment
of child asylum seekers arriving without visas and children who arrive
on a visa and subsequently seek asylum, as a result of its policy of detention
of unauthorised arrivals.
SCA is concerned
about the treatment of rejected child asylum seekers and other children
in immigration detention and the extent to which their rights under Articles
2 and 3 of the Convention in particular (non-discrimination and the best
interests of the child) are respected.
6. Temporary Protection
Visas
SCA believes that the issuing of Temporary Protection Visas is a breach
of CROC Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 22, and 26 and should be abolished
in favour of Protection Visas.
7. The best interests
of the Child (Article 3)
SCA believes that the detention of child asylum seekers, either with their
families, or unaccompanied, is not in the "best interests" of
the child, which should be the 'prime consideration in the treatment of
children. We assert that current "legislative, administrative and
other measures" (Article 4) do not adequately take the "best
interests of the child" into account.
8. The right to
family life (Article 5)
SCA believes that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, when read
with other relevant treaties such as the Refugee Convention, indicates
that alternatives to detention should be sought which allow children to
remain with their parents, with detention as a last resort. As this is
not the case at present, SCA believes that Australia is in breach of Article
5 of the Convention.
9 Deprivation
of Liberty (Article 37)
SCA believes that the current policy represents a systemic breach of Article
37 of the CROC. Detention of child asylum seekers is currently not a measure
of last resort, it is not for the shortest appropriate time, alternatives
are not given adequate consideration, it is not necessary or proportionate,
and the right to challenge detention is merely formal.
Placing children
in detention upon unlawful entry into Australia, as authorised in the
Border Protection Bill involves, Australia further breaching its obligations
under the Convention.
10. Unaccompanied
children (Article 20)
SCA is concerned that the treatment afforded to unaccompanied children
upon arrival, in the processing of their claims for asylum and their ongoing
detention as a result of an unsuccessful claim for asylum constitute a
breach of Article 20 of the Convention, which states that an unaccompanied
child seeking asylum must be afforded 'special protection and assistance'
by the government.
SCA believes that this situation is unsustainable. Guardianship for unaccompanied
children in immigration detention should be the responsibility of an independent,
properly resourced authority, whether State or Federal, which can advocate
for the best interests of the child. This would bring Australia into line
with current overseas practice in comparable countries.
11. Comparisons
with overseas practice
SCA believes that the current Australian law and regulations to detain
asylum seekers, to discriminate between asylum seekers based on their
unauthorised arrival, and to return unlawful entrants to countries of
origin, are out of step with international norms in comparable countries
such as Denmark, Canada and the UK.
12. Meeting our
international obligations
SCA believes that there is no way in which Australia is able to meet its
international obligations under the CROC and other relevant international
instruments under the current policy framework.
SCA supports the
adoption of alternatives to detention, as proposed by other organisations
including the Refugee Council of Australia.
Save the Children
is the world's largest independent child development organisation, with
32 member countries and programs in over 100. Save the Children works
for:
- a world which
respects and values each child
- a world which
listens to children and learns
- a world where
all children have hope and opportunity
In addition to its
development programs, Save the Children plays a critical advocacy role
around the world. It lobbies governments and the international community
and members of civil society, highlighting failures in public policy and
private practice which represent violations of children's rights. For
agencies such as Save the Children, whose purpose is deeply rooted in
children's rights, this role is crucial. Save the Children has an obligation
to act as custodians of children's rights, sharing the responsibility
to fight for their recognition and defence.
Save the Children
Australia (SCA) has played a vital role in the advocacy of children's
rights in Australia. Recent work includes Children's Rights: Equal
Rights? [1], which examined discrimination and racism
in Australia, and Children's Rights Reality or Rhetoric? [2],
which reviewed progress towards meeting Australia's obligations set out
under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC). Both documents
were part of wider international reports on these issues. Such work contributes
to the development of public policy which acknowledges and protects children's
rights in Australia.
The Human Rights
and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) Inquiry into children in immigration
detention provides SCA with a valuable opportunity to examine the maintenance
and protection of children's rights in Australia with respect to this
vulnerable population. SCA welcomes this opportunity to make this contribution.
Rights
Although other international
obligations (outlined below) are also relevant to this issues facing children
seeking asylum, this paper will focus on The Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CROC) because of Save the Children's intrinsic connection
to the development and monitoring of Convention.
The idea of a formal
expression of children's rights which can be used to harness political
and public commitment to improving the lives of children is fundamental
to Save the Children's work. Save the Children was instrumental in drafting
the Convention. The involvement of civil society not only improved the
content of the Convention but also generated an unprecedented level of
commitment to making it work.
All but two countries
have ratified the CROC, making it the most accepted international treaty.
The CROC incorporates the whole spectrum of human rights - civil, political,
economic, social and cultural - and sets out the specific ways in which
these should be made available to children. These rights include:
- civil rights and
freedoms,
- the right to a
name and nationality,
- the right to live
with parents, to be re-united if separated from them and to the provision
of alternative care if necessary,
- the right to basic
health and welfare, to education, leisure and cultural activities, and
- special protection
measures to guarantee the rights of refugee children, those caught up
in armed conflicts, children in the juvenile justice system and those
suffering economic, sexual or other exploitation.
At first glance,
the Convention is notable for the 41 individual articles that contain
a great deal of detail on a variety of specific children's rights. But
the CROC does have a broader vision. Children are seen as full human beings,
rights-holders who can play an active part in the enjoyment of their rights.
They are not - as they have often been presented in the past - mere dependents,
the property of their parents. They are not to be seen merely as victims,
workers, young offenders, pupils or consumers, but as complex and fully
rounded human beings.
Society has obligation
towards the children within it. The standards set out are those that any
decent society concerned for the well-being and happiness of its children
might want to attain. Those standards correspond to fundamental values,
such as a belief in human dignity, tolerance, equality, peace and freedom.
There is no place for discrimination against children, nor for their exploitation
or abuse. No child should live in poverty. A child's development should
be nurtured and encouraged through education, health and other services
to give it the best possible start in life. In times of war and civil
unrest, children should be given special protection.
The Convention is
available at http://www.unicef.org/crc/fulltext.html
The Relationship
between the CROC and the Refugee Convention
The CROC effectively incorporates the rights set out in the Refugee Convention.
Article 22 of the CROC provides that State Parties must ensure child asylum
seekers "receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance
in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in other international
human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said States are
Parties" [3] . As Australia is a State Party to
the Refugee Convention, it is obliged to ensure the rights outlined in
its provisions are afforded to child asylum seekers under both the Refugee
Convention and the CROC by virtue of article 22.
3. Failure to incorporate international instruments into
Australian law
SCA sees the failure
to incorporate international treaties into Australian law and regulations
as a serious shortcoming in the application of rights to children in immigration
detention.
Since the end of
the Second World War, the international community has joined forces to
develop a set of treaties that guide the actions of States in relation
to the protection of their citizens and others in their jurisdiction.
These treaties include:
- the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
- the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);
- the Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CROC);
- the Convention
on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW);
- the Convention
Against Torture (CAT);
- two Conventions
Against Statelessness;
- the various guidelines
published by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR),
including the Guidelines on the Detention of Asylum Seekers (1995) and
the Executive Committee of UNHCR's Conclusion No 44, Detention of Refugees
and Asylum Seekers (1986)
- the 1951 Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
Australia was one
of the countries behind the drafting of these treaties. It has also acceded
to each. Such accession leads to an expectation that Australia will incorporate
the treaty obligations in some form of domestic legislation or ensure
their reflection in a bill of rights. SCA believes that the fact that
this has not yet been done is a major weakness in Australia's refugee
policy.
Australia, as a key
regional player, should have an important role to play promoting and protecting
refugee rights in the Asia-Pacific region, including promoting accession
to the 1951 Convention and the other human rights treaties. It is to be
noted that many countries in our region are not signatories to the Refugee
Convention, including those which have recently taken in and processed
asylum seekers diverted en route to Australia. The absence of a clearly
defined human rights framework in this country, in our opinion, impedes
Australia's ability to perform this important regional function.
4. Australia's
non-refoulement obligations
SCA is concerned
that Australia is in breach of its obligations not to return asylum seekers
to a country where they would be at risk through its policy of screening
asylum seekers upon arrival and of attempting to turn back vessels which
seek to enter Australian territory.
Australia has undertaken
not to send back people to a country where they would be at risk of serious
human rights violations (refoulement). These risks are defined by the
Refugee Convention (Article 33) and in Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(Convention against Torture) to which Australia is a party.
Referring to the
Refugee Convention, Australian law defines refugees as people who
- are outside their
country of nationality or usual country of residence, and
- are unable or
unwilling to return to or to seek the protection of that country because
of well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
The Refugee Convention
prohibits "[the expulsion] or return [of] a refugee in any manner
whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would
be threatened on account of his race, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion" (Article 33.1).
Article 3.1 of the
Convention against Torture prohibits the return of people to another country
where they might face torture or ill treatment:
"No State
Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where
there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger
of being subjected to torture."
The convention specifically
allows for a wide interpretation of the term torture to include acts of
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 1.2, Article16).
In its February 1998
report, the Australian National Audit Office warns that
"[t]here
is a risk ... that the screening process will be perceived as a de facto
refugee determination system which lacks the important features of the
actual refugee determination system such as the provision of assistance
to the applicant and the availability of administrative and judicial
review ".[4]
Concerns have been
raised [5] that there are risks inherent to the current
screening process, that unrecognised refugees may be returned without
having been given a fair opportunity to make a protection claim. SCA shares
these concerns.
5. Unlawful
Entry
1. States Parties
shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention
to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any
kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national,
ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that
the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment
on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs
of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Article 2, Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
SCA believes that
Australia is in breach of article 2 of the Convention on the grounds of
its different treatment of child asylum seekers arriving without visas
and children who arrive on a visa and subsequently seek asylum, as a result
of its policy of detention of unauthorised arrivals.
SCA is concerned
about the treatment of rejected child asylum seekers and other children
in immigration detention and the extent to which their rights under Articles
2 and 3 of the Convention in particular are respected.
The non-discrimination
principle outlined in article 2 of the Convention prohibits discrimination
on the grounds of status, including immigration status. Every child in
Australia is entitled to all of the rights under the Convention without
discrimination.
The current system
allows for up to 12,000 people per year to be granted asylum. This includes
those who apply from overseas (off-shore applicants) and those who apply
once arrived in Australian territory (on-shore applicants). Those who
arrive in Australia unlawfully (ie, without authority to do so, such as
a visa) are normally placed in detention [6]. The Government
assumes that people will claim asylum within 45 days of arrival in Australia
and certain rights to financial and legal assistance are not afforded
to those who lodge claims after this period. Although not all children
who arrive and claim asylum are placed in detention, this is the normal
outcome of the current regime.
Many asylum-seekers
are able to obtain a passport and to enter Australia on proper travel
documents. Many others are forced to flee their homes at very short notice.
They cannot always be expected to risk travelling to a capital city to
obtain passports from the authorities and foreign embassy visas. Often,
they go to extreme lengths in order to seek protection in another country
and to prevent the authorities from their home country from identifying
them.
Under the screening
process introduced by the Australian authorities, any undocumented asylum-seekers
are interviewed on arrival. During this interview, asylum-seekers are
asked to identify themselves, present any identifying documents and to
explain how they arrived and by what route. They are asked why they came
to Australia and whether there is anything they wish to advise the authorities
about their countries of origin. It is important to note that they are
not asked specifically whether they wish to apply for refugee status,
seek protection from human rights violations or whether they wish to see
a lawyer. The summary of this interview is relayed orally to a senior
DIMIA official who will assess whether the answers, in that official's
view, are sufficient to engage Australia's protection obligations.
If the senior DIMIA
official accepts that there is a desire to seek asylum, the person concerned
is immediately detained. In effect, he or she is being detained for not
having proper documents. If, however, the senior DIMIA official deems,
on the basis of the information relayed orally, that the person does not
engage Australia's protection obligations, that person is liable to immediate
removal from the country.
Concerns have also
been raised that that mandatory detention, particularly continuing detention
beyond a reasonable time, may have the effect of impeding the proper presentation
of asylum claims and deter asylum-seekers from seeking protection in Australia
[7]. This situation could see genuine refugees not claiming
asylum from lack of knowledge of the legal process in this country and
lack of access to UNHCR officials or legal assistance
After status determination
Detained children whose asylum claims have been rejected or children who
did not claim asylum but who are detained on visa grounds are still covered
by the Convention's provisions while they remain in Australia. The Committee
on the Rights of the Child has clarified that articles 2 and 3 of the
Convention require that these children must enjoy all the rights enshrined
in the Convention regardless of current status:
The Committee is concerned about the application of the law and policy
concerning children seeking asylum, including unaccompanied children.
It is particularly concerned that unaccompanied minors who have had
their asylum request rejected, but who can remain in the country until
they are 18 years old, may be deprived of an identity and denied the
full enjoyment of their rights, including health care and education.
Such a situation, in the view of the Committee, raises concern as to
its compatibility with articles 2 and 3 of the Convention .[8]
Protection Visas
SCA believes that
the issuing of Temporary Protection Visas is a breach of CROC Articles
2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 22, and 26. and should be abolished in favour of
Protection Visas.
The discrimination
issue arises in relation to the different status that may be granted to
child asylum seekers depending on their mode of arrival in Australia.
Child asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation and are detained
may only receive a three-year Temporary Protection Permit when granted
asylum, whereas those who arrive with authorisation and are subsequently
recognised as a refugee receive permanent residency. The different legal
status deriving from these refugee visas translates into different rights
and benefits for children.
- The current system
discriminates between refugees who have arrived under the official government
program - who are granted permanent residency and may bring their families
into Australia and access settlement services, English language training
and mainstream social security services including Newstart (dole) -
and refugees who arrive by unauthorised means to whom it grants a three
year Temporary Visa Permit under which they are ineligible for any of
the above services.
- Holders of temporary
protection visas must reapply for asylum after their visa expires. That
is, they must prove that their fear of persecution (as defined under
the Act) is ongoing.
- Under the Temporary
Visa Permit neither the spouse nor dependent children of refugees are
permitted to join them in Australia.
best interests of the child (article 3)
"In all
actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private
social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration."
Article 3(1), Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
SCA believes that
the detention of child asylum seekers, either with their families, or
unaccompanied, is not in the "best interests" of the child.
We assert that current "legislative, administrative and other measures"
(article 4) do not adequately take the "best interests of the child"
into account.
The requirement in
article 3 of the Convention that the best interests of the child be given
"primary consideration" is a fundamental principle reflected
in the various provisions of the Convention.
Upholding the "best
interests" principle requires examination of government policy formulation
and individual decision-making regarding children. Article 3(1) does not
require the best interests of the child to be the sole consideration in
all decision-making, but it does require the child's interests to be the
subject of active consideration, with evidence that children's interests
have been taken into account as a primary consideration.
The principle of
the "best interests of the child" in article 3(1) is fundamental
to understanding Australia's obligation to implement the rights in the
Convention for all children. The "best interests" principle
should be used by all decision-makers, including service providers in
detention facilities, and be written into legislation in a way in which
it can be invoked before the courts.
8. The right
to family life (article 5)
States Parties
shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or,
where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as
provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally
responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the
evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance
in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present
Convention.
Article 5, Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
The Convention
n the Rights of the child, when read with other relevant treaties, indicates
that alternatives to detention should be sought which allow children to
remain with their parents, with detention as a last resort. As this is
not the case at present, SCA believes that Australia is in breach of Article
5 of the Convention.
Under the Convention,
all children are entitled to grow up in a healthy family environment,
with parents or legal guardians of child asylum seekers having the primary
responsibilities for the upbringing of their children. Australia is also
obliged to ensure that unaccompanied children receive appropriate alternative
care and guardianship arrangements.
Article 37(b) of
the Convention provides that children should only be detained as a last
resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. The provisions
of article 37(b), read with the child's right to family life, would indicate
that alternatives to the detention of children which involve the child
remaining with her or his parents out of detention should be considered
as a first resort by Australia, with detention as a last resort.
Article 37 is discussed
more fully later in this paper.
9. Deprivation
of liberty
Article 37 focusses
specifically on deprivation of liberty and is worth more detailed assessment
here. It states that
"States Parties shall ensure that:
...
"(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully
or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall
be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of
last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;
...
"(d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the
right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as
well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his
or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial
authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action."
The provisions
of article 37 are reiterated in relevant UNHCR guidelines on refugee
children.
"In accordance with the general principle stated at Guideline
2 and the UNHCR Guidelines on Refugee Children, minors who are asylum
seekers should not be detained "
UNHCR, Revised Guidelines on applicable Criteria and Standards Relating
to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers, (UNHCR Guidelines on Detention)
Introduction, Guideline 6 (1999) (emphasis retained).
Unfortunately
refugee children are sometimes detained or threatened with detention
because of their own, or their parents', illegal entry into a country
of asylum. Because detention can be very harmful to refugee children,
it must be 'used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate
period of time',
UNHCR Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care (UNHCR Guidelines
on Protection and Care), (1994) chapter 7.
SCA believes that
the current policy represents a systemic breach of Article 37 of the CROC.
Detention of child asylum seekers is currently not a measure of last resort,
it is not for the shortest appropriate time, alternatives are not given
adequate consideration, it is not necessary or proportionate, and the
right to challenge detention is merely formal.
An exercise of
the powers under section 245(9) of clause 8 of the Border Protection Bill
involves Australia further breaching its obligations under article 37(b)
of CROC.
9.1 Detention
as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of
time (article 37(b))
Any decision to detain a child asylum seeker must be made subject to the
provision of the Convention that the detention be in conformity with the
law, a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period
of time. The provisions of article 37(b) are repeated throughout relevant
UN standards on children. For example, the United Nations Rules for
the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990) states
that detention "should be used as a last resort" and "be
limited to exceptional cases. [9]" The United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the
Beijing Rules) (1985) reiterate that any detention should be brief [10]
and state this should only occur where the child has committed "a
serious act involving violence". [11]
9.2 Alternatives
to detention
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has emphasised the importance
of States finding alternatives to the detention of children [12]
For example, in relation to child asylum seekers whose claims were
rejected it has stated:
[T]he Committee is seriously concerned about legislation which permits
the detention of asylum-seeking children pending deportation. The Committee
urges the State party [Austria] to reconsider the practice of detaining
asylum-seeking children, and that such children be treated in accordance
with the best interests of the child ... [13]
The UNHCR also recommends
alternatives to detention for children and their families [14].
Australian law mandates
the detention of unauthorised child and adult asylum seekers [15].
The requirements that detention be the " last resort and for the
shortest appropriate period of time" (article 37(b)), is not reflected
in Australian law. It is widely accepted that it is not clear from international
law exactly what "the shortest appropriate period of time" for
detention. However, non-custodial measures should be investigated before
custodial measures. For these reasons, SCA believes that Australia is
in breach of Article 37(b).
Under bridging visa
requirements, child asylum seekers cannot be released from immigration
detention unless a State or Territory child welfare authority certifies
that a release from detention is in the child's best interests and the
Minister is satisfied that appropriate arrangements have been made for
the care and welfare of the child outside of detention [16].
As it is usually in a child's best interests to remain with her or his
family, and there is no provision for release of families from detention,
children are rarely granted bridging visas. SCA therefore believes that
current alternatives to detention, such as bridging visas, do not comply
with Article 37(b).
9.3 Necessity
The Human Rights Committee has found that detention of asylum seekers
may be arbitrary if it is not necessary and proportionate [17].
The UNHCR has stated
in ExCom Conclusion 44 [18] [that, because of the hardship
it causes, detention of asylum seekers should be avoided. If necessary,
UNHCR states that detention may only be resorted to in four cases:
- to verify identity
- to establish the
elements of a refugee status or asylum claim
- to deal with cases
where refugees or asylum-seekers have destroyed or falsified their travel
and/or identity documents to mislead authorities or
- to protect national
security or public order [19].
The UNHCR also states
that the right to liberty is a fundamental right and that therefore 'the
detention of asylum-seekers is in the view of UNHCR inherently undesirable'
[20]. Guidelines on Detention assert that there should
be a presumption against detention and that the only permissible exceptions
to this presumption are the four grounds provided in ExCom Conclusion
44. Detention of asylum seekers for any other purpose, 'for example, as
part of a policy to deter future asylum-seekers, or to dissuade those
who have commenced their claims from pursuing them, is contrary to the
norms of refugee law' [21]
In relation to children,
the Guidelines on Detention clearly stipulate that child asylum seekers
should not be detained [22]. If detention is considered,
those Guidelines provide that all alternatives to detention should first
be explored. If a child is detained, detention should be for the shortest
period of time and in accordance with the above four exceptions in ExCom
Conclusion 44.
Detention of child
asylum seekers will be arbitrary where it is not necessary in the circumstances
of a particular case. Detention may not be considered necessary outside
of the four exceptions contained in ExCom Conclusion 44 or where there
is an alternative to detention. SCA therefore believes that the detention
of child asylum seekers is in breach of article 37(b) of the Convention.
9.4 Proportionality
The Commission has found previously that Australia's detention policy
does not meet the minimum standards in ExCom 44 or the UNHCR Detention
Guidelines [23] and that it would be considered
arbitrary and unreasonable under article 9(1) ICCPR and article 37(b)
of the Convention .[24]
SCA therefore urges
the Government to expand the current alternatives to detention to include
all families with children and all unaccompanied children, except in the
circumstances permitted under ExCom Conclusion 44, in accordance with
Australia's international obligations.
9.5 Length of
detention
The permissible length of detention has not been definitively outlined
by the Human Rights Committee. However, the Committee has found violations
in a number of cases. The Human Rights Committee's comments in these cases
[25] raise questions about the validity of all but a
very brief period of detention in most cases.
While clear figures
on the length of detention for individual children are not available,
it is clear that the current policy allows children to be detained for
months, or even years, and that this has occurred in recent times. SCA
believes that this is in breach of Australia's international obligations
under Article 37.
9.6 Right to challenge
detention
Judicial oversight of all forms of detention is a fundamental guarantee
of liberty and freedom from arbitrariness. Without judicial oversight,
administrative detention may be indeterminate, being decided on grounds
of administrative or other convenience.
Article 37(d) of
the Convention mirrors article 9(4) of the ICCPR which provides:
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.
The jurisprudence
of the Human Rights Committee assists in determining the scope of article
37(d). While both the Convention and ICCPR articles apply to all children
held in detention, including child asylum seekers, article 37(d) of the
Convention also provides the child with the right to "prompt access
to legal and other appropriate assistance [26]"
before a court or similar authority. Where a child does not have access
to legal and other assistance to challenge her or his detention, there
will be a violation of the Convention. [27]
Judicial review of
detention in Australia remains very limited. As child asylum seekers may
be lawfully detained under the Migration Act 1958, any legal challenge
to their detention will be "merely formal" and unable to succeed.
At present, there is no court in Australia in which child asylum seekers
can take proceedings to determine whether their detention is arbitrary
and therefore in contravention of the Convention and/or the ICCPR. Accordingly,
SCA believes that Australia is in breach of article 37(d) of the Convention
and article 9(4) of the ICCPR.
9.7 Processing
of unlawful child entrants into Australia
The provisions under Clause 8 of the Border Protection Bill also raise
issues under the Article 37(b) of the CROC. Section 245(9) appears to
contemplate that any child aboard a detained boat or aircraft may be taken
into detention without expressly requiring consideration of alternatives
to detention for those persons; or separate consideration of the human
rights of those persons.
10.
Unaccompanied children -Article 20
An unaccompanied
child seeking asylum must be afforded 'special protection and assistance'
by the government (Article 20).
SCA is concerned
that the treatment afforded to unaccompanied children upon arrival, in
the processing of their claims for asylum and their ongoing detention
as a result of an unsuccessful claim for asylum constitute a breach of
Article 20 of the Convention.
SCA believes that this situation is unsustainable. Guardianship for unaccompanied
children in immigration detention should be the responsibility of an independent,
properly resourced authority, whether State or Federal, which can advocate
for the best interests of the child. This would bring Australia into line
with current overseas practice.
10.1 Assessment
By contrast with child asylum seekers who arrive or are reunited with
their parents, unaccompanied children do not have the support of their
family in making an asylum claim and thus need special assistance.
Unaccompanied children
are defined as those children who are separated from their parents and
are not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility
for the child [28]. Where adults are caring for the
child, or relatives of the child reside in the country of asylum, the
child should ordinarily stay with those carers for the duration of her
or his asylum claim [29].
Otherwise, special
procedures, including specially trained persons, should identify unaccompanied
children on arrival at a port of entry or where they have been residing
in the country for some time [30]. Care should be taken
in confirming whether the child is an asylum seeker or not. Whereas the
child's parents or guardian can often confirm that a child is indeed an
asylum seeker, it may be necessary to presume that an unaccompanied child
who arrives in Australia is an asylum seeker. As UNHCR notes:
Children often
do not leave their country of origin on their own initiative. They are
generally sent out by their parents or principal caregivers. 'If there
is reason to believe that the parents wish their child to be outside
the country of origin on grounds of their own well-founded fear of persecution,
the child him/ herself may be presumed to have such a fear' .[31]
10.2 Guardianship
of unaccompanied children
"The guardian
or adviser should have the necessary expertise in the field of childcaring
so as to ensure that the interests of the child are safeguarded, and
that the child's legal, social, medical and psychological needs are
appropriately covered during the refugee status determination procedures
and until a durable solution for the child has been identified and implemented.
To this end, the guardian or adviser would act as a link between the
child and existing specialist agencies/ individuals who would provide
the continuum of care required by the child."
UNHCR Guidelines
on Unaccompanied Children. [32]
The UNHCR recommends
that an independent and formally accredited organisation appoint a guardian
or adviser as soon as the unaccompanied child is identified [33].
The guardian/adviser would be charged with ensuring that the best interests
of the child are respected throughout the status determination procedure
and in all care and welfare decisions concerning the child.
The newly-appointed
guardian should ensure the child's well being by advocating and liaising
with appropriate agencies, such as in the fields of welfare, health and
education. Where the child is detained, the guardian must guarantee the
child's well being and where necessary, challenge the child's detention
before a court or similar authority (article 37(d)) [34].
Insofar as article 20 of the Convention provides that children deprived
of their family environment are "entitled to special protection and
assistance" and must be provided with alternative care, preferably
family based where there are no family members to care for them, the child's
guardian could be required to advocate for and ensure such protection
and assistance are received.
Currently, unaccompanied children in immigration detention are formally
wards of the Minister for Immigration, through DIMIA. This situation creates
possible and perceived conflicts of interest between DIMIA's role in detaining
and processing unaccompanied child asylum seekers and its role in acting
'in the best interests of the child'.
In Denmark, by contrast,
dedicated asylum centres have been established for unaccompanied children
as this vulnerable group requires special care. These centres have far
more staff and better resources than ordinary centres to provide these
children with enhanced educational and leisure opportunities. [35]
11. Comparisons
with overseas practice
SCA believes that
the current Australian law and regulations to detain asylum seekers, to
discriminate between asylum seekers based on their unauthorised arrival,
and to return unlawful entrants to countries of origin are out of step
with international norms.
Displacement is a
global issue, and the numbers of people seeking asylum in developed countries
round the world has grown dramatically over recent years. Australia is
not immune from the global problem. The US Committee for Refugees latest
annual figures are for 2000. They show:
Canada
At the end of 2000, Canada hosted some 54,400 refugees and asylum seekers
in need of protection. These included individuals in 30,177 pending asylum
cases, 13,990 who received refugee status during the year, and 10,236
refugees resettled from abroad during the year.
Canada received a
record number of asylum seekers, 36,534, in 2000. During the year, 34,253
claims were referred to Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
Canadian authorities decided 24,124 refugee claims, recognising applicants
in 13,990 cases as refugees, a 57 percent approval rate (in 1999, the
approval rate was 58 percent). Another 4,685 cases were either abandoned
or otherwise concluded. The Canadian government reports the approval rate
at 49 percent of all applications referred during the year to the IRB,
up slightly from 46.3 percent in 1998. [36]
In 2000, the leading
source countries for refugee claims in Canada were Pakistan (3,111), Sri
Lanka (2,906), and Hungary (2,304). China, Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia
were the next largest source countries, with 1,000 to 2,000 applications
for each country.
Denmark
At the end of 2000, Denmark hosted about 10,300 refugees and asylum seekers
in need of protection. These included 1,332 persons granted refugee status
under the UN Refugee Convention, 2,530 issued de facto refugee status,
31 granted permission to stay on humanitarian grounds, 379 granted residence
permits for other "exceptional reasons," some 345 with temporary
protection, 464 resettled "quota" refugees, and about 5,200
asylum applicants awaiting a decision on pending claims. [37]
UK
At the end of 2000, refugees and asylum seekers in about 87,800 cases
were in need of protection in the United Kingdom. These included 66,195
cases awaiting an initial decision, 11,365 granted humanitarian status
based on their asylum claims, and 10,186 cases granted asylum during the
year.
Some 76,040 persons
(excluding dependents) applied for asylum in 2000, the highest number
of annual applications ever in the United Kingdom and more than in any
other Western European country during the year. The 66,195 applications
pending an initial decision at year's end represent a 36 percent decrease
from the 1999 backlog of 102,870.
The largest number
of asylum seekers who filed applications in the United Kingdom in 2000
arrived from Iraq (7,080), Sri Lanka (6,040), Yugoslavia (5,695), Afghanistan
(5,230), Iran (5,170), Somalia (4,795), and the former Soviet Union (4,140).
11.1 Detention
of asylum seekers
Canada
Although some asylum seekers are held in detention, asylum seekers are
generally not detained. Canada provides asylum seekers with a variety
of social services, including income support and health services. Asylum
seekers are also authorized to work while their claims are pending. [39]
Denmark
Since 1995 Danish law has permitted the authorities to detain asylum seekers
whose applications are, or are expected to be, placed in the manifestly
unfounded category. For these people the Denmark Immigration Service (DIS)
may exercise an accelerated procedure, and they may be denied the opportunity
to appeal. During 2000, the DIS considered 780 applications to be manifestly
unfounded [40].
UK
In April 2000, sweeping changes in the support and housing of asylum seekers
in the United Kingdom came into effect, under the Immigration and Asylum
Act (1999).
A new "processing
centre" in Oakington, Cambridge opened in March 2000 to process people
quickly who had asylum claims the government deemed to be "manifestly
unfounded." Asylum applicants in the "semi-secure" centre
receive decisions on their applications within seven days of arriving.
The centre processed about 400 applicants per week during 2000. [41]
11.2 On-shore
versus off-shore claimants
Australia's policy stands in contrast to those outlined here. None of
Canada, the UK or Denmark distiguishes as clearly as Australia between
asylum seekers who apply from overseas (off-shore) and those who claim
asylum once arrived in the country. None of these countries has a policy
of routine detention for unlawful arrivals who claim asylum.
11.3 Return
of asylum seekers upon arrival
Under Danish law, the authorities may refuse to admit asylum seekers who
arrive at the borders without valid travel documents if they come from
a "safe third country." Denmark does not maintain an official
list of safe third countries. In practice, the authorities consider the
United States, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Poland, and to some extent,
Hungary as such [42].
For the UK, Asylum
applicants who have travelled through a European Union (EU) country, Canada,
the United States, Switzerland, or Norway may be refused entry and removed
from the United Kingdom without having their claims considered at all
[43].
The Government has
argued that the recently introduced provisions to expel asylum seekers
from Australia are in line with those of other countries. It is clear
that practice in Denmark and the UK is to return asylum seekers who have
passed through another country that has undertaken to take refugees, while
Australia is removing people upon arrival in Australian territory to countries
which are not party to resettlement programs.
How can Australia best meet its obligations under the CROC in respect
to children seeking asylum?
SCA believes that
there is no way in which Australia is able to meet its international obligations
under the CROC and other relevant international instruments under the
current policy framework.
SCA supports the
adoption of alternatives to detention, as proposed by other organisations
including the Refugee Council of Australia.
The Government has
argued that:
1. detention of asylum seekers is not mandatory - unauthorised entrants
are detained;
2. families should not be separated;
3. it is meeting its obligations towards children in detention by the
provision of health, education, cultural and other services.
These points deserve consideration.
1. While it is important
to acknowledge that not all on-shore child applicants for asylum are in
detention, it is clear that detention is the norm for this population.
Also, this fact that not all of these children are in detention does not
offer protection of rights to those that are, and it is these cases that
clearly breach the CROC.
2. It is usually
in the best interests of a child to remain in a family environment with
familiar caregivers. If Australia is to meet its obligation to the CROC
then any family group containing a child who has applied for asylum should
be released from detention. Maintenance of familial relationships does
not justify the detention of children. In addition, it has been argued
that placing children in situations of familial stress, such as detention,
has resulted in the occurrence of physical and psychological illnesses.
3. Other organisations
have acknowledged the significant improvements in the treatment of asylum
seekers in detention in Australia [45]. SCA also acknowledges
this to be true. However, improvements to living conditions of children
in detention do not alter their status as detainees, and therefore does
not alter the significant and systematic breach of the CROC. Rights conferred
under the CROC are not divisable - it is not possible to argue that meeting
many, or most, of the Articles in the CROC allows a country to avoid responsibility
for the remaining Articles.
12.1 Alternatives
to Detention
Other organisations have developed an alternative to detention of asylum
seekers. The following model is taken from the Refugee Council of Australia
[46]. In brief, the alternative model provides a legislative
and regulatory framework for a more flexible detention regime. The model
has been endorsed by a range of civil society organisations. More detail
on the model can be obtained from http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/alternative1.htm
Under this model
restrictions of the current type on the liberty of Protection Visa applicants
should be kept to a minimum, usually to less than 90 days. After the initial
period in closed detention, most applicants would pass on to a more liberal
regime; one that is most appropriate to the individual's circumstances.
Regular review of each applicant's detention status is recommended to
ensure the restriction placed on individuals are appropriate for their
circumstances. Finally, a review process is recommended to establish an
ongoing process leading to a higher level of equity in the case management
of each applicant.
The alternative model
proposes a three-stage regime. The stages represent a progression ranging
from severe restrictions on personal liberty to increasingly liberal provisions.
The three stages
of detention are:
- i) Closed detention:
this represents the most severe form of detention. All applicants who
have not been immigration cleared would be initially held in closed
detention. During this initial period, the applicant's identity and
circumstances would be established to the point where a decision can
be made about the form of detention that is most appropriate. It is
envisaged that most applicants would be moved to one of the two more
liberal detention regimes within 90 days of arrival in Australia. Closed
detention would be under the control of the Department of Immigration
and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA).
- (ii) Open detention:
this represents an intermediate regime. It would facilitate those applicants
who were considered to be unsuitable for community release, either because
this was judged not to be in the interests of the community or, not
to be in the best interests of the applicant. Freedom of movement would
be restricted by curfew requirements. Residential facilities would be
maintained and regulated by DIMA.
- iii) Community
Release: this represents the most liberal regime within the detention
model. DIMA would not be responsible for the accommodation and welfare
of the applicants. Under some forms of community release, family members
or community organisations should undertake some responsibilities for
the applicant. Restriction on personal liberty would be limited to residing
at a designated address and reporting requirements.
Advantages:
The alternative detention model offers a range of advantages by providing:
- A more humane
regime, which reduces individual suffering and hardship by providing
for alternative detention mechanisms which can be respond to individual
needs.
- Greater flexibility,
by being able to move applicants from one detention stage to another
as their circumstances change.
- Enhanced equity,
by reducing the present disparities in treatment between those applicants
who are authorised entrants and those who are not
- Reduced Costs:
Financial savings can be achieved by the significantly reduced use of
closed detention which is the most costly regime.
- Political costs
would be reduced. The alternative model addresses community concerns
thus rendering detention a less divisive issue.
- Closer harmony
with international guidelines, as the model would bring detention practice
in Australia into consistency with international treaties.
Rights: Equal Rights? Diversity, Difference and Discrimination , (2000),
Save the Children, London.
2. Children's Rights Reality or Rhetoric? The UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child: The First 10 Years, (2001), Save the Children,
London.
3. Article 22(1) of the Convention provides: "States
Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is
seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with
applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether
unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person,
receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment
of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other
international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said
States are Parties."
4. Australian National Audit Office, The Management of
Boat People: Performance Audit, tabled 18 February 1998, section 6.38.
5. Amnesty International (Australia), A Continuing Shame:
The mandatory detention of asylum seekers, available from http://www.amnesty.org.au/whatshappenning/refugees/index-16.html#2
6. Department of Immigration and multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs, Fact Sheet: Immigration Detention, available from http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/uad/03.htm#10
8. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations
of the Committee on the Rights of the Child : Belgium, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.38,
20 June 1995, para 9. See also the Committee's comments to Denmark: "The
Committee notes that all children who have had their asylum requests rejected
but who remain in the country have had their rights to health care and
education provided de facto but not de jure. It is the view of the Committee
that this situation is not fully compatible with the provisions and principles
of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention", Concluding Observations of
the Committee on the Rights of the Child : Denmark, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.33,
15 Feb 1995, para 14.
9. See too the comments to Finland: "It also encourages
the State party to consider measures through which asylum-seeking and
refugee children can be granted equal access to the same standard of services,
in particular education, irrespective of who they are and where they live."
Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child :
Finland, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.132, 16 Feb 2000, para 52.
10. Rules 1 and 2, United Nations Rules for the Protection
of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. Rule 2 provides "[d]eprivation
of the liberty of a juvenile should be a disposition of last resort and
for the minimum necessary period and should be limited to exceptional
cases. The length of the sanction should be determined by the judicial
authority, without precluding the possibility of his or her early release".
11. Rule 17(b) of the United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) provides:
"Restrictions on the personal liberty of the juvenile shall be imposed
only after careful consideration and shall be limited to the possible
minimum".
12. Rule 17(c), Beijing Rules, provides that "Deprivation
of personal liberty shall not be imposed unless the juvenile is adjudicated
of a serious act involving violence against another person or of persistence
in committing other serious offences and unless there is no other appropriate
response".
13. For example, considering Sweden's Initial Report,
the Committee observed: "The Committee also suggests that consideration
be given to providing alternatives to the incarceration of children under
the Aliens Act and that a public defence counsel be appointed for children
in conflict with the law." Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC),
Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child :
Sweden, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.2, 18 Feb 1993, para 12. In relation to child
asylum seekers, the Committee observed to Canada:
"Deprivation of liberty of children, particularly unaccompanied children,
for security or other purposes should only be used as a measure of last
resort in accordance with article 37 (b) of the Convention". CRC,
Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child :
Canada, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.37, 20 June 1995, para 24.
14. Emphasis retained. CRC, Concluding Observations on
the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Austria, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.98,
7 May 1999, para 27. See too the Committee on Canada: "the Committee
recommends that the Government address the situation of unaccompanied
children and children having been refused refugee status and awaiting
deportation in the light of the Convention's provisions. Deprivation of
liberty of children, particularly unaccompanied children, for security
or other purposes should only be used as a measure of last resort in accordance
with article 37 (b) of the Convention", CRC, Concluding Observations
of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Canada, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.37,
20 July 1995, para 24.
15. "If refugee children are detained in airports,
immigration holding centres or prisons, they must not be held under prison-like
conditions. Special arrangements must be made for living quarters which
are suitable for children and their families. Strong efforts must be made
to have them released from detention and placed in other accommodation";
UNHCR Guidelines on Protection and Care, ch 7. See too Guideline 6, UNHCR
Guidelines on Detention.
16. All persons, including children, in the migration
zone without a valid visa must be kept in immigration detention until
granted a visa, removed or deported: s14 and s196(3), Migration Act 1958
(Cth). S196(3) provides that "[t]o avoid doubt the release,
even by a court, of an unlawful non-citizen from detention (otherwise
than for removal or deportation)" is not permitted "unless the
non-citizen has been granted a visa."
17. Regulation 2.20, Migration Regulations 1994. See
HREOC (1998), Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised
arrivals, pp21-22.
18. For example, the Committee has found breaches of
Article 9 in circumstances where people have not been released after their
prison sentences have been fully served. See, for example, HRC, Weisman
and Perdomo v Uruguay, UN Doc UNHRC 8/1977.
19. UNHCR Executive Committee (EXCOM), Conclusion No.
44 (1986) - Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers.
20. UNHCR Executive Committee (EXCOM), Conclusion No.
44 (1986) - Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers at (b).
21. See UNHCR Guidelines on Detention, Introduction,
para 1.
22. Guideline 3, UNHCR Guidelines on Detention.
23. Guideline 6, UNHCR Guidelines on Detention.
24. The UNHCR detention guidelines referred to in HREOC
(1998), Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals
, p45 are the UNHCR (1985), Guidelines on Detention of Asylum Seekers,
which were the previous version of the 1999 UNHCR Guidelines on Detention
25. See HREOC (1998), Those who've come across the seas:
Detention of unauthorised arrivals, p53.
26. For example, "The Committee takes note with
concern that provisions in article 2, para. 24 (f) of the [Peruvian] Constitution,
which permits preventive detention for up to 15 days in cases of terrorism,
espionage and illicit drug trafficking, as well as Decree Law 25,475,
which authorizes extension of preventive detention in certain cases for
up to 15 days, raise serious issues with regard to article 9 of the Covenant."
HRC, Concluding Comments on Peru, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add. 67, 25 July1996,
para 18. Reference should also be made to the judgements of the European
Court of Human Rights under article 5 of the ECHR. In Amuur v France (cited
above), 20 days detention of Somali asylum seekers was found to breach
article 5(1), ECHR.
27. According to the Human Rights Committee "[t]he
important guarantee laid down in paragraph 4, i.e. the right to control
by a court of the legality of the detention, applies to all persons deprived
of their liberty by arrest or detention. Furthermore, States Parties have
in accordance with article 2(3) also to ensure that an effective remedy
is provided in other cases in which an individual claims to be deprived
of his liberty in violation of the covenant", HRC, General Comment
No. 8, para 1.
28. See the case of Berry v Jamaica, of the Human Rights
Committee, Communication No. 330/1988, 16 October 1992. The Committee
accepted the complainant's allegation "which remains unchallenged,
that throughout this period [detention of two and a half months], he had
no access to legal representation". In addition to violating Article
9(3) ICCPR, the Committee concluded: "that the author's right under
article 9, paragraph 4, was also violated, since he was not, in due time,
afforded the opportunity to obtain, on his own initiative, a decision
by a court on the lawfulness of his detention"; at para 11.1.
29. See UNHCR Guidelines on Unaccompanied Children, para
3.1. See also article 5 of the Convention which defines family broadly.
Unaccompanied children are entitled to "special protection and assistance
provided by the State" under article 20(1) of the Convention.
30. See UNHCR Guidelines on Unaccompanied Children, Annex
Two.
31. UNHCR Guidelines on Unaccompanied Children, paras
5.1-5.3.
32. UNHCR Guidelines on Unaccompanied Children, para
8.9, citing para 218 of the UNHCR Handbook.
33. UNHCR Guidelines on Unaccompanied Children, para
5.7.
34. UNHCR Guidelines on Unaccompanied Children, para
5.7.
35. UNHCR Guidelines on Unaccompanied Children, paras
6-7.
36. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report
Denmark, available at http://refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/denmark.htm
37. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report:
Canada, available at
38. http://refugees.org/world/countryrpt/amer_carib/canada.htm
39. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report
Denmark, available at http://refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/denmark.htm
40. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report
UK, available at http://refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/united_kingdom.htm
41. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report:
Canada, op. cit.
42. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report:
Denmark, op. cit.
43. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report:
UK, op. cit.
44. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report:
Denmark, op. cit.
45. US Committee for Refugees (2001), Country Report:
UK, op. cit.
46. Amnesty International (Australia) (2001), A Continuing
Shame: The mandatory detention of asylum-seekers, available at http://www.amnesty.org.au/whatshappening/refugees/index-16.html#2
47. Amnesty International (Australia), op. cit.
48. Refugee Council of Australia (2000), The Alternative
Detention Model, available at http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/alternative1.htm
Last
Updated 9 January 2003.