Case studies: Communications that were successful before a UN treaty body When domestic law fails to achieve the desired out come for human rights violations

Toonan case In 1991 Nicholas Toonan complained to the human rights committee that the prohibitation of male homosexuality was in violation of the right to privacy guaranteed under Art. 17 of the ICCPR. The HRC established the laws were in violations of Art. 17 the Australian government in accordance with its obligation with the ICCPR acted to address the violation.

Continued... Govt. Introduced federal legislation to override the Tasmanian law Before this was enforced Tasmania amended its own laws.

Mr. A case Mr. A, a Cambodian asylum seeker complained to the HRC that his detention was in breach of Article 9 of the ICCPR  ‘unwarranted detention and no means of challenging it’  Australian government rejected the committees review saying it disagreed with its legal basis  This was an explicit rejection by a party to the ICCPR.  In subsequent observations the HRC expressed its concerns at the Australian Governments response

Elmi 1998 – Elmi complained to the Committee against torture Kept in asylum since arriving in Australia from Somalia, and his application for asylum was denied Took his case to the High Court, however was rejected  He claimed that his forced return would be in violation of Article 3 of the CAT  The government allowed Mr. Elmi to pursue his claim over again, however Elmi left voluntarily to another country.

Young August 2003 was successful in his communication with the HRC for the alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation Young was denied a pension benefit upon his partners death. The HRC found this denial violated the right to equal treatment contrary to Article 26 of the ICCPR. The HREOC commission identified 58 instances of discrimination in Commonwealth Law, and the Rudd government took measures to amend the discriminations identified by HREOC, in addition to over 40 instances by 2009.

Brough 2006 – Mr Brough was succesful in his communication to HRC He was an indigenous youth who was an inmate at a juvenile justice centre, where he participated in a riot and was transferred to an adult centre. He was held for long period along in a so called ‘safe cell’ This was not commensurate with his status of a juvenile person whom has a special status as a disabled Indigenous Australian. Committee found the breach of articles 10 and 24 of the ICCPR and emphasized the importance of a effective remedy No such remedy was granted by the Government.

Iranian Asylum Seeker Australian has been repeatedly in breach of the prohibition against arbitrary detention joint communication by Iranian Asylum seekers who had been held for extended time in immigration for up to four years Committee said Australia was in breach of Article 9(1) of the ICCPR