Complaints

Search

Communications raising ICCPR Article 10

Rights and Freedoms

Brough v Australia (2006)

Aboriginal youth with intellectual disability and suicidal thoughts detained in isolation in adult prison including 24 hours a day lighting. Human rights violations found regarding articles 10 and 24. Claim by Australia that domestic remedies not exhausted, rejected in detail.

Cabal and Pasini v. Australia (2003)

This communication concerned the treatment of two detainees while facing deportation to Mexico for trial for a variety of criminal offences.

The Committee noted that contracting out of administration of prisons or detention facilities does not relieve parties to the Covenant of their obligations

The Committee rejected a number of complaints but upheld the communication in other respects.

  • The Committee noted regarding failure to segregate detainees from convicted persons that Australia had a reservation in force regarding ICCPR Article 10.2(a) which accepted this obligation only as one to be achieved progressively. The Committee noted however that it was unfortunate that progressive realisation had not been completed in the 20 years since ratification.
  • The Committee found unsubstantiated complaints of failure to provide separate treatment
  • Shackling of the prisoners as well as their being subjected to strip and cavity searches was found not to violate ICCPR articles 7 and 10 in view of evidence that the complainants had in the past evaded arrest through the use of false travel and identity documents, had access to considerable financial resources; had made payments to other prisoners, and that other prisoners had offered to assist any escape in return for financial payment. Also, the State party has explained that the authors were not singled out for searches but that the searches were carried out in a manner designed to minimise the embarrassment to them, and were carried out only to ensure the safety and security of the prison.

The Committee did however find a violation of ICCPR Article 10.1 in the temporary holding of the two prisoners in a "cage" where only one man at a time could sit. Although noting that the complainants had asked to be kept together, the Committee regarded it as a violation to fail to have a cell able to hold two persons in more adequate conditions.