gt v. australia

7/28/2019 GT v. Australia

1/15

UNITEDNATIONS CCPRInternational Covenanton Civiland Political Rights

Dist r .RESTRICTED*CCPR/C/61/D/706/19964 Decembe r 1997Or ig ina l : ENGLISH

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEES ix ty - f i r s t sess ion20 October - 7 Novembe r 1997

VIEWSC o ~ ~ u n i c a t i o n No. 706/1996

Submit ted by:Vict im:Sta te Darty:Date conrnunicat ion:

Mrs. G. T.The author ' s husband, T.Aust ra l ia

10 May 1996 ( i n i t i a l submission)Date of a C o D ~ i o r . of Views: 4 November 1997

On 4 November 1997, the Human Rights C o ~ ~ i t t e e adopted i t s Views undera r t i c l e 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol in respec t of communicationNo. 706/1996. The t ex t of the Views i s appended to the present document.

[ANNEX]

* Made publ ic by dec is ion of the Human Rights Committee.VWS706 cbGE.97-19632


2/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 2

ANNEX'

Views of the Human Rights Committee under ar t i c le 5, paragraph 4,of the Optional Protocol to the I n t e rna t i ona l Covenant

on Civi l and Po l i t i c a l RightsSix ty - f i r s t sess ion -

concerningCommunication No. 70611996"

Submitted by:Victim:Sta te Darty:Date of communication:

Mrs. G. T.The author ' s husband, T.Aus t ra l i a

10 May 1996 ( i n i t i a l submission)The Human Rights C o ~ ~ i t t e e , es tabl i shed under a r t i c l e 28 of the

In te rna t iona l Covenant on Civi l and Po l i t i c a l Rights,~ e e t i n g on 4 November 1997,Having concluded i t s considera t ion of communication No. 706/1996

submit ted to the Human Rights Committee by Mrs . G. T. on behalf of herhusband, T ., under the Optional Protocol to the I n t e rna t i ona l Covenant or:Civi l and Po l i t i c a l Rights,

Eavir:g taken into account a l l wri t t en information ~ a d e avai l ab le to i tby the author of the communication and the Sta te par ty ,

AdoDts the fol lowing:

The fol lowing members of the Committee pa r t i c ipa t ed in the examinat ionof th e present communication: Mr. Nisuke Ando, Mr. Praful lachandra N.Bhagwati , Mr. Thomas Buergenthal , Ms. Chr i s t ine Chanet, Lord Colvi l l e ,Mr. Omran El Shafe i , Mr. Eckar t Klein , Mr. David Kretzmer, Mr. RajsoomerLal lah , Ms. Ceci l i a Medina Quiroga, Mr. Fausto Pocar, Mr. Ju l io Prado Valle jo ,Mr. Mart in Scheinin , Mr. Danilo Turk, Mr. Maxwell Yalden and Mr. AbdallahZakhia.

Pursuant to ru le 85 of the Committee 's ru les of procedure, Ms. ElizabethEva t t d id not pa r t i c ipa te in the examination of the case .

The t ex t s of two indiv idual opinions signed by th ree Committee membersare appended to the present document.


3/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 3

Views under a r t i c l e 5. paragraph 4, of the Ooti on al P ro to co l1. The a u t h o r of the communication i s Mrs. G. T., an A u s t r a l i a n c i t i z e n ,r e s i d i n g i n Castlemaine, V i c t o r i a . She submits the communication on b e h a l f ofher husband, T., a Malaysian c i t i z e n born i n 1962, c ur r e nt l y i n A u s t r a li aunder t h r e a t o f d e p o r ta ti on . She claims t h a t h er h usb an d's d e p o r t a t i o n t oMalaysia would v i o l a t e h i s r i g h t t o l i f e .Facts as submitted2.1 T. was convicted i n A u s t r a l i a f o r impor t ing around 240 grams o f h eroinfrom Malaysia i n t o A u s t r a l i a i n 1992, and was sentenced t o s i x y e a r s 'imprisonment. On 15 June 1993, while i n p r i s o n , T. sought refugee s t a t u s ,which was r e j e c t e d on 10 Augus t 1993 . An a p p l i c a t i o n for review was refusedby the Refugee Tribunal on 6 July 1994, which considered t h a t t h e r e was a r e a lchance t h a t T. would face the imposition of the death p e n a l t y by the Malaysiana u t h o r i t i e s , but t h a t t h i s did not c o n s t i t u t e p e r s e c u t i o n i n terms of theRefugee Convention.2.2 Following h i s r e l e a s e on p a r o l e , on 25 October 1995, T. a p p l i e d f o r ap r o te c t i o n v is a , under s e c t i o n 417 of the Migrat ion Act. This v i s a wasr e f u s e d . At t h e time of submission of the communication, t h i s r e f u s a l wa sbe fo re th e A u s t r a l i a n Federal Court.2 .3 The a u t h o r marr ied T. on 21 January 1996. He became the s t e p f a t h e r ofher sons. She s t a t e s t h a t if her husband i s e x t ra d it e d t o Malaysia, he w i l lbe charged t h e r e again under the Dangerous Drugs Act, s e c t i o n 39B of whichprovides f o r the mandatory death p e n a l t y fo r t r a f f i c k i n g drugs .

wou I d beCourt t o

2.4v i s a

At t h e t ime of the communication, T. was i n A u s t r a l i a onwhich expired on 9 June 1996. The au th or fe are d t h a tdepor ted a f t e r th e ex piry of t h i s v i s a , as she expectedconfirm h is d e p o r ta ti o n .

a "br idgingher husbandthe f e d e r a l

The comolaint3 .1 The author claims t h a t her husband 's d e p o r t a t i o n t o Malaysia, wheret h e r e i s a r e a l chance t h a t he wi Ll, face the death p e n a l t y , w i l l v i o l a t eA u s t r a l i a ' s duty t o p r o t e c t h i s r i g h t t o l i f e . In t h i s c o n t e x t , the authornotes t h a t A u s t r a l i a i t s e l f has a bo lis he d t he death p e n a l t y .3.2 In support o f her claim, the author r e f e r s t o a l e t t e r from theA u s t r a l i a n Office of Amnesty I n t e r n a t i o n a l , dated 25 March 1996 and addressedt o the Minister fo r Immigration and Ethnic A f f a i r s . In the l e t t e r , AI opposesthe f o r c i b l e r e t u r n of T., as it b e l i e v e s t h a t he w i l l face the death p e n a l t yi n Malaysia as a r e s u l t of h i s c o n v i c t i o n i n A u s t ra li a . In t h i s c o n t e x t , AInotes t h a t a person found t o have been i n possession of more than 15 grams ofh ero in fa ces a mandatory death sentence i n Malaysia.


4/15

CCPR/C/6l/D/706/l996Page 4

3.3 The a u t h o r f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t the Dangerous Drugs Act provides f o re l i m i n a t i o n of b a i l , so t h a t persons await ing t r i a l a r e always kept i nd e t e n t i o n . She f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s a delay of up t o four or f i v ey e a r s f o r t h e i n i t i a l t r i a l , and t h r e e of four years f o r an appeal . Shet h e r e f o r e argues t h a t her husband would a l s o l i k e l y spend seven t o nine yearsi n p ri so n b ef or e being executed.3.4 She f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t an amendment t o the law, now a l s o provides f o rthe mandatory whipping f o r everyone convic ted under t h e Dangerous Drugs Act,al though it i s not c l e a r whether t h i s i s a ls o a pp li e d i n c a p i t a l punishmentc a s e s .

3 .5 I t i s f u r t h e r submit ted t h a t persons s us pe cte d o f drug offences can bed eta in ed fo r up t o two years i n p r ev e n ta t iv e d e te n ti o n without a p o s s i b i l i t yof recourse t o the c o u r t s . She argues t h a t t h i s would be i n v i o l a t i o n of ther i g h ~ not t o be a r b i t r a r i l y d e t a i n e d .3.6 The a u t h o r a l s o claims t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n her husband 's casewould not be f a i r , and t h a t he w i l l not r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l , because of h i se t h n i c i t y and h i s l a c k of f u l l und er st an di ng o f Malay, i n v i o l a t i o n of h i sr i g h t t o e q u a l i t y b e f o r e the law.3.7 The a u t h o r concludes t h a t by r e t u r n i n g her husband t o Malaysia,A u s t r a l i a w i l l v io la te i t s fundamental duty of p r o t e c t i o n , and w i l l cause a

t r a u ~ a f o r her and her sons.C o ~ ~ i t ~ e e ' s r u l e 86 r e a u e s t4.1 On 17 June 1996, the Committee, a c t i n g through i t s Specia l r a p p o r t e u rf o r New CorrIDunications, reques ted the S ta te p a r t y not t o deport T. to Malaysiaor ~ o any country where he would l i k e l y face the death sentence .4.2 0:1 3 June 1997, the S t a t e p a r t y re qu es te d th e Comm i t t e e t o lift i t srequest under r u l e 86. In t h i s context , it r e f e r r e d to assurances which it hadr e c e i v e d from the Malaysian Government t h a t "any Malaysian n a t i o n a l who hadcommitted and b ein g se nte nc ed o ve rse as on the charge of any offence committedoverseas w i l l not be prosecuted upon h i s r e t u r n t o Malaysia f o r a charge orcharges r e l a t i n g t o h i s offence committed overseas . As such, the quest ion ofdouble jeopardy w i l l not a r i s e . Never theless , a Malaysian n a t i o n a l may becharged by the Malaysian a u t h o r i t i e s due t o o t h e r offences t h a t he might hadcommi t t e d i n Malaysia ." The S t a t e p a r t y added t h a t the c o n t e n t s of theMalays ian assurances had been brought t o the a t t e n t i o n of T. by l e t t e r of30 May 1995, who r e p l i e d by l e t t e r of 7 June 1995 t h a t the informat ion was" ve ry com for ti ng and r e a s s u r i n g " .

S t a te D a rt y' s o b s e r v a t i o n s on a d m i s s i b i l i t y and m e r i t s5 .1 The S ta t e p ar t y r e q u e s t s the Committee t o examine a d m i s s i b i l i t y andm e r i t s of the communication s imultaneous ly . The S t a t e p a r t y has i d e n t i f i e d the


5/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 5

i s sues ra i sed by the a utho r in her communication as i s sues under ar t i c l es 2,6, 7, 9, 14 and 26 of the Covenant.5 .2 The S ta te p ar ty expla ins t ha t T. ' s a p pl ic at io n t o the Federa l Court wasf ina l i sed on 11 March 1997, when he withdrew h is a pp li ca ti on in the l i g h t ofthe Cour t ' s recen t ru l ing in a s imi lar case . Following T. ' s fur therapp l i ca t i on under sec t ion 417 of the Migrat ion Act 1958, which a l lows theM in is te r to grant persons the r i gh t to s t ay in A us tra lia fo r humanitar ianr easons , he has been granted a fur ther br idging v isa un t i l 11 Ju ly 1997.Should h is request not have been cons idered by t ha t date , he would be e l ig ib l efo r an ex tens ion of the v i sa .

5.3 As to a r t i c l e 2, the S ta te pa r ty argues t ha t the r i gh t s unde r th i sprov is ion a re acc esso ry in nature and l inked to the o the r s pe ci f ic r ig htse n s h r i ne d in the Covenant. I t r eca l l s th e Committee 's i n t e rp re t a t i on of aSta te pa r ty ' s ob l iga t ions under a r t i c l e 2, paragraph 1, pursuant to which i fa S ta te p ar ty takes a decis ion concerning a person within i t s j u r i sd i c t i on ,and th e n ec essa ry and fo reseeab le consequence i s t ha t t h i s person ' s r i gh t sunder the Covenant wi l l be v io la te d in ano ther j u r i sd i c t i on , the Sta te par tyi t s e l f raay be in v io l a t i on of the Covenant ' . I t notes however t ha t theComr:\ittee 's j u r i sp rudence has been appl ied so fa r to cases concerningext rad i t ion , whereas the au thor ' s case r a i ses the i ssue of the "necessary andforeseeable consequence" t e s t in the co nte xt of expuls ion of an indiv idual whowas conv ic ted of se r ious drug offences and who has no le g a l bas is fo rremaining in Aust ra l ia : it cannot be sa id t ha t a r e t r i a l fo r drug t raf f icki :1goffences i s cer ta in or the purpose of re tu rn ing T. to Malaysia.5 .4 In the Sta te pa r ty ' s opinion, a narrow construct ion of the "necessaryand foreseeable consequences" t e s t allows fo r an i n t e rp re t a t i on of theCovenant which balances the pr i nc i p l e of S ta te p ar ty r es po :1 sib il i ty embodiedin ar t i c l e 2 (as i n t e rpre ted by the COITIDittee) and the r igh t of a Sta te par tyto exerc i se i t s di scre t ion as to whor:\ it grants a r i gh t of entry . To the Sta tepar ty , t h is i nt er pr et at iv e approach r e t a ins the i n t eg r i t y of the Covena nt andavoids a misuse of the Op ti on al P ro to co l by i nd iv idua l s who entered Aust ra l iafo r the purpose of commit t ing a crime and who do not have val id refugeecla ims.5 .5 Regarding a r t i c l e 6, the S ta te pa r ty r eca l l s the Committee 'sjur i sprudence as s e t out in the Views on communication No. 539/1993 2 and notest ha t while a r t i c l e 6 of the Covenant does not proh ib i t the imposition of thedeath penal ty , Aust ra l ia has, by access ion to the Second Optional Protocol to

See Views on communications Nos. 469/1991 (Ch. Ng v. Canada) , adoptedon 5 November 1993, paragraph 6.2; and 470/1991 (J . K ind ler v. Canada), Viewsadopted 30 Ju ly 1993.

Communication No. 539/1993 (Keith Cox v . Canada) , Views adopted31 October 1994, paragraph 16 .1 .


6/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 6

the Covenant , under taken an obl iga t ion not to execute anyone wi th in i t sj u r i s d i c t i on and to abol ish cap i t a l punishment. The S ta te p ar ty argues t ha tthe au thor has f a i l ed to subs tan t ia te her a lle ga tio n th at it would be anecessary and foreseeable consequence of her hus band 's mandatory removal fromAus t ra l i a t ha t h is r i gh t s under a r t i c l e 6 of the In terna t ional Covenant onCiv i l and Po l i t i c a l Rights and ar t i c l e 1, paragraph 1, of the Second OptionalProtocol wi l l be vio la ted ; th i s aspect of the case should be declaredinadmiss ib le under a r t i c l e 2 of the Pro toco l, o r dismissed as b ein g w ith ou tmer i t s .

5.6 According to the S ta te p ar ty , the mere a l l ega t i on t ha t T. would bel i ab le under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, upon h is re tu rn to Malaysia, i si n su f f i c i en t to subs tant i a t e the claim tha t there is a r ea l risk tha t he wil lbe charged, prosecuted and sentenced to death . The S ta te p arty notes t ha texpuls ion i s dis t ingui shable from ext rad i t ion in t ha t the very purpose ofex t r ad i t i on i s to re tu rn a person for prosecut ion or to serve a sentence,whereas no such necessary connect ion ex i s t s between expuls ion and poss ib lep rosecu t ion .

5.7 The Sta t e par ty submits t ha t the author has fa i led to provide anyevidence t ha t T. wil l be prosecuted , or i s l i ke ly to be p r o s e c ~ t e d , on h isre tu rn to Malaysia. The S ta te p ar ty r e fer s to t he a ss ur an ce s given by Malaysia(see 9aragraph 4.1) and argues tha t a wri t ten assurance from a receiv ing Sta teshould be accepted as conclusive evidence t ha t there i s no necessary andforeseeable r i sk of a vio la t ion . The Sta te par ty submits tha t fu r th e rinqui r i es confirm t ha t there i s no r i sk to T. o f p ro se cut io n . In th i s context ,it re fe rs to informat ion from the Aust ra l ian Mission in Kuala LUffi9ur t ha t :"The Royal t1alaysian Pol ice have ora l ly confirmed to us t ha t they do noti n s t i t u t e cr iminal proceedings for t r a f f i ck ing in drugs aga ins t a personre turned to ~ a l a y s i a - tha t i s fo r e xp ortin g narcot ics - and to our knowledget h i s has never occurred nor do any of our in te r locutors consider it everl ike ly to occur . We have no reason to doubt t ha t Malaysia wil l cont inue toabide by the pr inci91es governing double jeopardy as it has in the pas t . " TheSta te par ty adds tha t in three p re vio us c ase s conce rn ing pe rsons convicted andsen tenced fo r drug t r a f f i ck ing offences in Aus t ra l i a , it sought advice onwhether tha t person might be su bjec t to charges in Malaysia r e l a t i ng to thedrug t r a f f i ck ing offence. On each occas ion, t he in fo rm a tio n confirmed t ha tsuch a r i sk would not a r i s e . The S ta te p ar ty has no evidence tha t a person ins imi la r ci rcumstances as T. has been charged and executed on return toMalaysia .5.8 As regards the author ' s r e l i ance on the Refugee Review Tr ibunal ' sopinion t ha t there i s a r ea l chance t ha t her husband would be charged underthe Dangerous Drugs Act, the S ta te pa rty expla ins t ha t in the Tr ibunal ' sju r i sp rudence a " r ea l chance" i s one t ha t i s "not remote" rega rd less ofwhether it i s l es s or more than 50 per cent . This a pp ro ac h i s consis tent withthe objec t s of the Refugee Convention and r e f l ec t s the prac t i ca l evident i a ld i f f i cu l ty of proving a refugee claim but , according to the Sta te par ty , itdoes not suf f i ce fo r the purposes of proving a vio la t ion of the Covenant. In


7/15

CCPR/C/61/0/706/1996Page 7

t h i s context , the Sta te par ty argues t ha t it would be incor rec t to i n t e rp re tth e Covenant e i t h e r by r e f e r ence to i n t e rp re t a t i ons of domestic law or byre fe rence to th e requirements of the Refugee Convent ion. The Sta te par tyargues t ha t the "necessary and foreseeable consequence" t e s t places a higherburden on a complainant than t ha t of " r ea l chance". According to the Sta tepar ty , under the Covenant the ind iv idua l i s requi red to demonstrate t ha t aprospec t ive v io l a t i on can be foreseen and i s inevi t ab le and t ha t the re i s ac lear causal l ink between the decis ion of the expel l ing S ta te and the fu turevio la t ion by th e rece iv ing Sta t e .5 .9 In r e spec t to the claim t ha t T. i s l i ke ly to be sub jec t to corporalpunishment or extended per iods on death row when sentenced und er Mal ay sia nlaw, the Sta te pa r ty re fe rs to i t s arguments in re la t ion to a r t i c l e 6 of theCovenant and argues tha t no rea l r i sk ex is ts tha t he wil l be prosecuted underthe Dangerous Drugs Act.5.10 Al t e r n a t i ve ly , the S ta te pa r ty submits t ha t the author has providedi n su f f i c i en t evidence tha t T., i f he would be prosecuted and convicted, i s a tr i sk of being subjected to caning or to a unreasonable period of detent ion ondeath row. In th i s context , the Sta te par ty r e f e r s to information receivedfrom i t s Mission in Kuala Lumpur re ga rd in g t he detent ion on death row t ha t " i ti s th e c on sid ere d view of our in te rl oc u to rs t ha t there i s nothing notablyinhumane or unusual ly harsh about t he c on di ti on s of those placed in Malays ia ' sdeath rm,,". The Sta te par ty contends t ha t the author of fer s i n su f f i c i en tevidence t ha t T., in the pa r t i cu l a r c ir cumst an ce s o f h is case, i s personal lya t r i sk of caning or being held fo r an unreasonable length of t ime on deathrov..t ,

5.11 As regards a r ~ i c l e 9 of the Covenant, the S ta te p ar ty accep ts t ha t theDangerous Drugs (Special Preventa t ive Measures) Act 1985 provides fo rpreventa t ive de ten t ion of persons suspected of involvenent in drugt r a f f i ck ing . I t also accep ts t ha t the Act provides fo r the detent ion of sucha p e r s or: for up to t.wo years for the purposes of quest ioning and thei nves t iga t ion of of f ences . The S ta te p ar ty fur ther acknowledges t ha t it i sl i ke ly th at T. wil l be questioned on re tu rn to Malaysia in connect io n w i th theoffences fo r which he was convic ted i n A u str al ia . I t argues however t ha t themere q ue stio nin g o f an ind iv idua l on re tu rn to h is country of na t iona l i t y inr e l a t i on to h is convic t ion by ano ther Sta te does not of i t s e l f amount to anecessary and foreseeable breach of h is Covenant r i gh t s .5.12 According to informat ion received by the Aust ra l ian Mission in KualaLumpur, a Malaysian na t iona l conv ic ted of drug t r a f f i ck ing offences overseaswould probably be put on a watch- l i s t . The depor tee would be met on a r r i v a la t th e a i r po r t by members of th e An ti-Na rc oti cs Branch of the MalaysianPol ice . He would be in terv iewed to gain in sig ht in to h is ro le and, if thepol ice determined t ha t he had l imited involvement in t r a f f i ck ing of the drug,was not a member of a cr iminal syndicate and has little in te l l igence to of fer ,preventa t ive detent ion could well not occur . The Sta te par ty emphasizes t ha tpreventa t ive de ten t ion i s n ot a utoma tic and depends on the c ir cumst an ce s o f


8/15

CCPR!C!61!O!706!1996Page 8

each ind iv idual case . In the case of T., he had never been sentenced fo r adrug offence before , and he h as c la im ed t ha t he i s not par t of a drug networkand t ha t he d id not know the con ten ts o f the bag cont ai ni ng h e ro in . In thosecircumstances , it i s not l ike ly according to the S ta te p ar ty tha t he would bekept in p r ev e nt at iv e d et en ti on . Moreover, the Act provides fo r r e s t r i c t i onorders as an a l t e rna t ive t o d ete nti on . In view of a l l th i s , the Sta te par tyargues t ha t de ten t ion in v io l a t i on of a r t i c l e 9 i s not a necessary andforeseeable consequence of Aus t r a l i a ' s decis ion to r e turn T. to Malaysia.5 .13 The Sta t e par ty argues t ha t i t s ob l iga t ion in r e l a t i on to fu turevio la t ions of human r i gh t s by ano ther Sta te ar i ses only in cases involving apo ten t ia l vio la t ion of the most fundamental human r ight s and does not a r i s ein re la t ion t o a lle ga ti on s under a r t i c l e 14 , paragraph 3. I t re ca lls th at theCommittee's jur i sprudence so fa r has been confined to cases where the al legedvic t im faced ext rad i t ion and where the c la ims r e l a t ed to vio la t ions ofa r t i c l e s 6 and 7. In th i s context , it r e f e r s to the jur isprudence of theEuropean Court of Human Rights in the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, wherethe Court , while f inding a vio la t ion of a r t i c l e 3 of the European Convention,s ta ted in respec t of a r t i c l e 6 t ha t i ssues under t ha t provis ion might onlyexcept ional ly be raised by an ext radi t ion decis ion in circumstances where thefug i t ive has suffered or r is k s s uf fe ri ng a f l agrant denia l of due process inthe request ing s ta te . In the i n s t an t case , the author claims tha t T. wil l notge t a f a i r t r i a l because of h is Chinese e thnic i ty , s ince he cannot read orw rite 2ng lish and i s not f lu en t in Malay. Information provided by theAust ra l ian Mission in Kuala Lumpur shows tha t an accused would have access toproper l ega l representa t ion and to i n t e rp re t a t i on serv ices , as weLl, as tol ega l a id . The Sta te par ty argues the re fo re t ha t the re i s no r ea l r i sk t ha tT . ' s r i gh t s under a r t i c l e 14 would be vio la ted .5.14 'As regards the author I s claim t ha t her husband woul d be subj ec t todiscr iminat ion on the ground of h is Chinese e thnic i ty , the S ta te p ar ty argues

t ~ a t t h i s claim s h o u ~ d be declared inadmiss ible for f a i lure of subs tant i a t ionor should be dismissed as unmer i tor ious . In t h i s re spec t , the S ta te p ar tyr e f e r s to its arguments r e l a t i ng to a r t i c l e s 6 and 14, as well as to thedec i s ion of the Refugee Review Tribunal in T. ' s case , where the Tribunal foundt ha t h is lack of f luency wou Ld not preclude a f a i r in te r rogat ion by thepol ice , and t ha t the re was no evidence t ha t the death penal ty wasdispropor t ionate ly app l ied to Chinese compared to members of o the r e thn icgroups.Author 's comments on the Sta te pa r ty ' s observat ions6.1 By submiss ion of 4 October 1997, th e author re qu es ts the Committee tomain ta in its r eques t to the Sta te par ty not to return T. to Malaysia . Sheno tes th e assu rances given by the Malaysian Government, t ha t a Malaysianna t i ona l wi l l not be prosecuted fo r crimes which he committed in ano thercoun try , bu t po in ts out t ha t it i s also sa id t ha t he may be charged w ithoffences committed under Malaysi an law. She contends t ha t , s ince it i s obvioustha t th e drugs found in h er h usb an d's possession when he came o ff the plane


9/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 9

were obta ined in Malaysia, it i s c lea r th at he committed a cr iminal offencein Malaysia under sec t ion 37 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, which provides fo rthe mandatory death penal ty for t r a f f i ck ing drugs . Sect ion 37(d) of the sameAct provides t ha t any person who i s found to have had drugs in his custody orunder h is contro l sha l l be deemed to have known the nature of such drug. Sheconcludes t ha t the so -ca l led assurances from the Malaysian Government do notpreclude th e poss ib i l i ty t ha t her husband wil l be prosecuted upon re tu rn .6.2 As to her husband 's l e t t e r of reply to the assurances , the au thorexpla ins t ha t th i s l e t t e r was wri t ten by ano ther inmate in pr i son , and t ha ther husband s igned the l e t t e r th inking it was a thank you l e t t e r in generalterms. In th i s context , she expla ins t ha t her husband's knowledge o f E nglishi s l imi ted and t ha t he cannot wri te or read it.6 .3 The au thor r e i t e r a te s t ha t a "rea l chance" ex i s t s t ha t h er h us ba nd 'sr i gh t s under th e Covenant wil l be v io la ted upon h is re tu rn to Malaysia, inpa r t i cu l a r h is r igh t to l i f e . She claims t ha t Aust ra l ia has a duty under theCovenant to p rev ent th e vio la t ion of Covenant r ight s by allowing her husbandto s tay in the country . In th i s context , she s t a t e s t ha t in 1994, theAustra l ian Federa l Government offered T. protec t ion in exchange for ass is tancein disc los ing involvement of federa l off icers in tampering with importeddrugs . However, he dec lin ed the of f e r fear ing t ha t h is l i f e would beendangered in Aus t ra l ia as well , i f he would cooperate . The a uth or s ug ge st stha t the Government a t t ha t t ime t r i ed to make her husband cooperate knowingt ha t he would face danger in Malaysia and making use of h is f ea r in th i sre spec t .

6.4 The au thor acknowledges t ha t h er h us ba nd 's expuls ion does not have asi t s purpose h is handing over to s tand t r i a l . However, she s t a t e s t ha t it i sbeyond doubt t ha t the ! ' lalaysian Government wil l take ac tio n ag ain st herhusband for the drugs t ha t he had in h is possession in Malaysia, and t ha t by

~ a k i n g t h i s possib :e through expel l ing him, Austra l ia wil l become an accessoryto the v io l a t i on of her husband 's Covenant r ight s in Malaysia.

6 .5 The author acknowledges t ha t Aust r a l i a has an i n t e r e s t in promoting thesecu r i ty of i t s soc ie ty , but s t a t e s t ha t her husband has al ready serv ed th esentence the cour ts imposed upon him, t ha t he has been reformed, t ha t he hasno more deal ings with drugs, t ha t he has b ee n work in g fo r a year and tha t hei s s t r iv ing for f or gi ve ne ss o f h is past wrongs. He wishes to s t a r t a new l i f eand to r a i s e a family . The author does not quest ion Aus t r a l i a ' s r i gh t todecide to whom it g ra nts e ntry , but according to her , Aus t r a l i a ' s duty topro t ec t l i f e must pr eva i l .6 .6 As re gard s th e r i sk of prosecut ion under the Dangerous Drugs Act, theauthor r eca l l s t ha t the death penal ty i s mandatory in Malaysia for t r a f f i ck ingin drugs. She submits t ha t her husband 's f am i ly have made inqu i r ie s and foundt ha t h is name i s placed on the Malaysian computers for a r r e s t . I t is sa id tha tT. ' s mother fears for h is l i f e and has even come to A us tra l ia to persuade himnot to re tu rn to Malaysia. The author argues t ha t even if the re were only a


10/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 10

rem ote c ha nc e of prosecu t ion , t h i s would cons t i tu t e a rea l r i sk . In th i scontex t , she notes tha t the S ta te par ty has not provided conclus ive evidencet h a t her husband wi l l not be a r re s te d in Malaysia fo r exp orting drugs,t he re fo re her husband has a well-founded fear t h a t he wi l l be ar r es t ed andprosecuted under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Since it i s not poss ible to pred ic tth e outcome of such prosecu t ion , a r e a l r i sk e xis t s th at th e death penal tywi l l be imposed.6.7 As regards the information gathered by the Austral ian Mission in KualaLumpur, the author notes t h a t the re i s no wri t ten proof of these assurances ,and t ha t the only wri t t en assurances do not exclude prosecut ion fo r expor t ingdrugs . The author reques ts the Committee to give f u l l c on si de ra ti on t o evena rem ote chance of prosecu t ion r a the r than a foreseeable consequence. Theauthor r e f e r s to the Committee's ju r i sprudence t ha t the words of the Covenanthave a meaning separate from tha t of the n at io na l l eg al system and s ta te s t ha tth i s i s the reason why she s ubmi tte d h er h us ba nd 's case. Since the Austral ianl ega l system has fa i led to pro tec t h is l i f e , she expects the Committee touphold h er h us ba nd 's r igh t to l i f e .I ssues and oroceedings b efo re th e Committee7.1 The Committee apprec ia tes t ha t the S ta te p arty has, although chal lengingth e admiss ib i l i t y of the au thor ' s claims, also provided informat ion andobserva t ions on the meri ts of the a l l ega t ions . This enables the COITIDittee toconsider both the a d ~ i s s i b i l i t y and th e m eri ts of the presen t c ase , p ursu an tto ru le 94 , paragraph 1, of the C o ~ ~ i t t e e ' s ru les of procedure .7 .2 Pursuant to ru le 94 , paragraph 2, of the ru les o f proc ed ure, theCommittee sha l l not decide on the meri ts of a communication without havingconsidered the app l icab i l i ty of any of the grounds of adm i s s ib i li ty r e fe r re dto in th e O ptio na l Protocol .7 .3 The au thor has claimed t h a t her husband would face unequal t r ea tmentbecause of h is e thn ic background and h is poor knowledge of Malay, and t ha tth i s would render the t r i a l aga ins t him unfa i r . The Committee notes tha t theau thor has fa i led to provide su f f i c i en t subs tan t i a t ion of her claim , fo rpurposes of a d ~ i s s i b i l i t y . This pa r t of the communication i s thus inadmiss ib leunder a r t i c le 2 of the Optional Protocol .7.4 As regards the author 's claim tha t the depor ta t ion of her husband wouldv io l a t e the r igh ts to family l i f e pro tec ted under a r t i c l e s 17 and 23 of theCovenant , the Committee f inds t h a t th i s claim i s not su f f i c i en t l ysub s t an t i a t ed fo r purposes of admiss ib i l i t y and thus inadmiss ible undera r t i c l e 2 of the Optional Protocol .7.5 The Committee considers tha t no o bs ta cle s to th e admiss ib i l i t y of theau thor ' s remaining claims ex i s t and p ro ce ed s w it h an examinat ion of the mer i t so f the case .


11/15

CCPR!C/61/0!706/1996Page 11

8.1 What i s a t i s sue in th i s case i s whether by depor t ing T. to Malaysia,Aus t r a l i a exposes him to a rea l r i sk ( tha t i s , a necessary and foreseeableconsequence) of a vio la t ion of h is r igh ts under th e Covenant. Sta tes pa r t i e sto the Covenant must ensure t ha t they ca r ry out a l l t he i r o the r l ega lcommitments, whet he r under domest ic law or under ag reemen ts with other s t a t e s ,in a manner cons i s t en t with the Covenant. Relevant for the considera t ion ofth i s i ssue i s the Sta te pa r ty ' s obl iga t ion , under a r t i c l e 2, paragraph 1, ofthe Covenant , to ensure to a l l ind iv idua ls within i t s t e r r i t o ry and sub jec tto i t s j u r i sd i c t i on the r i gh t s recognized in th e Covenant. The r i gh t to l i f ei s the most fundamental of these r i gh t s .8.2 I f a Sta te par ty depor ts a person within i t s t e r r i t o ry and su bjec t toi t s j u r i sd i c t i on in such circumstances tha t as a resu l t , there i s a r ea l r i skt ha t h is or her r i gh t s under the Covenant wi l l be v io la ted in anotherju r i sd ic t ion , t ha t S ta te p ar ty i t s e l f may be in v io la t ion of the Covenant.8.3 The Committee observes t ha t ar t i c l e 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 read together ,al lows th e im po sit io n of the death penal ty fo r the most se r ious crimes, butt ha t the Second Optional Protocol , to which Aust ra l ia i s a par ty , providest ha t no one within the ju r i sd ic t ion of a Sta te par ty sha l l be executed andt ha t the S ta te p arty sha l l take a l l necessary measures to abo lish the deathpena l ty in i t s ju r i sd ic t ion . The provis ions of the Second O p t ~ o n a l Protocolare to be considered as addi t ional p ro vis io ns t o th e Covenant.8.4 In cases l ike the present case , a rea l r i sk is to be deducted from thei n t en t of the country to which the person concerned i s to be deported, as wel las from the pa t t e rn of conduct shown by the country in s im ila r cases . TheAust ra l ian Government i s depor t ing T. from i t s t e r r i t o ry because he has noe nti t lem en t to remain in Au str al ia ; Malaysia has not requested T. ' s r e turn .Although the Committee cons iders t ha t t he " as su ra nc es " given by th e H ala ysia nGovernment do not as such preclude the poss ib i l i ty of T. ' s p ro se cu tio n fo rexpor t ing or possessing dru gs , n oth in g in th e in fo rm ation b efo re the Committeepo in ts to any i n t en t ion on the par t of Malaysian au tho r i t i e s to prosecute T.The S ta te p ar ty i t s e l f has made in v es tig a tio n s in to the poss ib i l i ty of theimposi t ion of the death sentence fo r T. and has been informed t ha t in s imi larcases no prosecut ion has occurred . In the circumstances , it cannot beconcluded t ha t it i s a foreseeable and necessary consequence of T. ' sdepor ta t ion t ha t he wi l l be t r i ed , convic ted and sentenced to death .8.5 The Committee the re fo re concludes tha t Austra l ia would not vio la te T. ' sr i gh t s under a r t i c l e 6 of the Coven an t an d a r t i c l e 1 of the Second OptionalProtocol if th e d ec is io n to depor t him were to be implemented.8 .6 In assess ing whether the author could be exposed to a r ea l r i sk of av io l a t i on of a r t i c l e 7 of the Covenant, because he might be subjec ted tocaning, considera t ions s imi lar to those deta i l ed above in paragraph 8.4 apply.The i nf ormat io n b e fo re the Cowmittee does not i nd ica te t ha t any t rea tment inv io la t ion of a r t i c l e 7 of the Covenant i s th e fo res eea ble and necessaryconsequence of T. ' s deporta t ion from Aust ra l i a . The Committee concludes t ha t


12/15

CCPR!C!61!O!706!1996Page 12

Aus t r a l i a would not v io l a t e i t s ob l iga t ions under a r t i c l e 7 of the Covenantif it depor ts T. to Malaysia.8 .7 With regard to th e p os si bl e p re ve nta tiv e d et en ti on of T. under theDangerous Drugs (Special Preventa t ive Mea sure s) Act 1985, th e Committee no test h a t it i s l i ke ly t h a t T. wil l be d eta in ed fo r ques t ioning upon h is re tu rn toMalaysia. According to the Sta te par ty , however, p r ev en ta ti ve d e te n ti on i s notautomatic and i s not l i ke ly to occur in the i n s t an t case, taking in to accountT. ' s l imi ted knowledge of the t r a f f i ck ing in which he was involved. The authorhas not chal lenged th i s informat ion , and only r e l i e s on the exis tence of thelaw in claiming t ha t the re i s a r i sk t h a t her husband may be sub jec t top r ev e nt at iv e d e te n ti on . In the circumstances , the Committee c an no t c on clu det ha t T. ' s depor t a t ion to Malaysia would amount to a v io la t ion by Aust ra l ia ofh is r i gh t s under a r t i c l e 9 of the Covenant.9. The Human Rights Committee, act ing under a r t i c le 5, paragraph 4, of theOptional Protocol to the In terr .a t ional Covenant on Civ i l and Pol i t i ca l Rights,i s of the view t ha t the fac t s before it do not reveal a v io la t ion by Aust r a l i ao f any of the prov is ions of the Covenant.

[Adopted in Engl ish , French and Spanish, th e English t ex t being th e or i g i na lversion . Subsequently to be i ssued a lso in Arabic, Chinese and Russia n a s pa r tof the Committee 's annual repor t to the General Assembly.]


13/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 13

APPENDIXA. Indiv idual opinion by Commit te e member Martin Scheinin (d issent ing)

To my r eg r e t I have had to d i sagree with the Committee 's d ec is ion todea l j o in t ly with the admi s s i b i l i t y and meri ts of the present case . Thispos s ib i l i t y , provided fo r by the Committee 's ru les of p ro ce du re , s ho uld notin my opinion be r esor ted to in every case . In r e l a t i on to the presen tcommunication, in which the author d id not specify the Covenant a r t i c l e s sheinvoked, the merger of admiss ib i l i ty and meri t s has meant t ha t the S ta te p ar tyhas in fa c t had the pos s ib i l i t y to determine, in i t s r e jo inder , thesu bs tan tive is su es to be dea l t with by the Committee.

In my o pin io n th e communication ra i ses more i s sues under the Covenantthan those to which the Sta te par ty r ep l i ed . In pa r t i cu l a r , th i s is t rue fo rthe protec t ion of family l i f e under a r t i c l e 17 and a r t i c l e 23, paragraph 1.The S ta te pa r ty has fa i led to address the i s sue of whether the reasonsj u s t i fy ing the depor ta t ion of a person who has fu l ly served h is cr iminalsentence and who has already been able to r e - e s t ab l i sh h is family l i f e areweighty enough to l eg i t imize the adverse consequences fo r the family l i f e ofthe person and h is c l os es t ones. In my opinion, the Committee should havetaken a s ep a ra te d ec is io n dec la r ing th e case admiss ible and ask ing the Sta tepar ty to again comrnent on the meri ts of the case, a t l e a s t in re la t ion toa r t i c l e s 17 and 23.

As fa r as the remaining aspec ts o f the case are concerned, I wish toemphasize t ha t seve ra l fa cto rs d is tin gu ish the p resen t case from theCommit-::ee's previous decis ion in A.R.J. v. Aust ra l ia (comrnunicationNo. 692/1996). I r e f e r to the dissent ing opinion by Mr. Klein and Mr. Kretzmerand : ind t ha t Aust ra l ia would v io l a t e i t s ob l iga t ions under a r t i c l e 7 of theCovenant, the proh ib i t ion of to r ture or cruel , inhuman or degrading t rea tment ,i f the decis ion to deport Mr. T. to Malaysia were to be implemented.

M. Scheinin [signed]

[Or ig inal : English]

B. Indiv idual opinion by Commit te e members Eckar t Kleinand David Kretzmer (dissent ing)

1. The quest ion in th i s c o ~ ~ u n i c a t i o n i s whether the author ' s husband Twil l be subjec t to a r ea l r i sk of the death penal ty i f the S ta te p art y deport shim to Malaysia . In assess ing whether such a r isk has been es tabl i shed twof ac tor s have to be considered:

(a ) Does the law in Malaysia provide the death penal ty fo r an ac tcommitted by T.?


14/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 14

(b) I f the answer to a. i s pos i t ive , what are the chances t ha t the lawwi l l be enforced if T. re tu rn s to Malaysia?

2. The author has presented evidence to the Committee t ha t a person foundto have been in p os se ss io n o f more than 15 grams of hero in faces a mandatorydeath sentence in Malaysia. This evidence was not con t rad ic ted by the Sta tepa r t y . As T. was c on vic te d o f impor t ing 24 0 grams of hero in from Malaysiai nt o Au s tr al ia it has been c lear ly es tab l i shed tha t under Ma lays ian law he i ssubj ec t to a mandatory d ea th s en te nc e. This c l ea r ly dis t ingui shes t h i scommunication from communication No. 692/1996, decided by the Committee inJuly 1997, s ince in t ha t communication there was c l ea r evidence t ha t themaximum sentence in Iran for t ra f f ick ing the amount of cannabis the autho r wasconvic ted of possessing in Aus t ra l i a was f ive years ' im prisonm ent (seepara . 6.12 of Committee's Views). The argument of the author in t ha t case wastha t the death penal ty would be im posed, e ven tho ug h it was not provided fo runder I r an ian law. The argument in the present case i s t ha t the Malaysianauthor i t ies wil l apply t he i r law under which the death penal ty i s mandatory.3. We cannot accept the approach inherent in the Committee's s ta tement t h a ~"nothing in the i nf ormat io n b e fo re the Committee po in ts to any in ten t ion onthe pa r t of the Malaysian au tho r i t i e s to prosecute T." (para . 8 .4 ) . As thedeath pena l ty i s mandatory fo r the of fence committed by T. in Malaysia, wemust assume t h a t t h i s pena l ty wil l be imposed in Malaysia. The quest ion i snot whether an in ten t ion of the Malaysian author i t ies to prosecute T. has beenproved, but whether s t rong evidence has been provided to refute the assumptiontha t Malaysian law wi l l be appl ied . The answer i s negat ive .4. The assurances provided to the Sta te par ty by the Malaysian author i t iesand m e n ~ i o n e d in para . 4.2 of the Committee 's Views c l ea r ly leave open thedoor to charge T. fo r an offence committed in MaLa y s i.a . vJe cannot ascr ibe

m ~ c h vieight to the or a l co nfirm atio n o f the Royal Malaysian Police, mentionediil para . 5.7 of the Committee 's Views, t ha t they do not i n s t i t u t e cr iminalproceedings fo r t r a f f i ck ing in drugs aga ins t a person re tu rn ed to Malaysia.The assessment of the Austra l ian Mission in Kuala Lumpur, which received th i sora l confirmation, was tha t "Malaysia wil l cont inue to abide by the pr inc ip lesof double jeopardy as it has in the pas t . " However, the quest ion of doublejeopardy would a r i s e only if Malaysia were to prosecute T. fo r ac t s whichcons t i tu ted the crimes fo r which he was convicted in Aust ra l ia . I t would nota r i s e if the MaLa y s i an au tho r i t i e s were to prosecute T. for possession ofdrugs in Malaysia or fo r expor t ing drugs from t ha t country. As these ac t scarry a mandatory d ea th s en te nc e under Ma lays ian law something s t ronger thana vague ora l conf i rmat ion i s required to re fu te the assumption tha t theMalaysian au tho r i t i e s wil l indeed enforce t he i r law.5. In communication No. 692/1996 evidence was provided by the Sta te par tyt ha t other embassies in I ran , one of which handles a high volume of asylumcases , had informed the Sta te pa r ty ' s embassy t ha t no indiv iduals who had beendeported to I ran a f t e r serv ing a prison sentence in another country for drugoffences were subjec t to rea r res t and r e t r i a l . As opposed to th i s pos i t ive


15/15

CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996Page 15

evidence t h a t persons i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n t o t h e d e p o r t e e had not i n f a c tbeen charged i n I r a n , t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e p a r t y i n the p r e s e n tcommunication i s n eg at i v e: t h e S ta te p a r ty knows of no cases i n which a personi n s i m i l a r circumstances t o T. has been charged and execu ted on r e t u r n t oMalaysia . (para . 5.7 o f t h e Committee 's Views). Like t h e o r a l c o n f i r m a t i o nment ioned above t h i s evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o r e f u t e t h e assumption t h a tMalaysian law w i l l be a p p l i e d i n T . ' s c a s e .6. In t h e l i g h t o f t h e above we a r e forced t o conclude t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a lr i s k t h a t T. w i l l face a d ea th s en te nc e if he i s deported t o Malaysia. We a r et h e r e f o r e o f t h e opinion t h a t by d e p o r t i n g T. t h e S ta te p a r t y would v i o l a t eits o b l i g a t i o n t o ensure h i s r i g h t t o l i f e under a r t i c l e 6 o f t h e Covenant.

E. Klein [signed]D. Kretzmer [s igned]

[ O r i g i n a l : English]

gt v. australia

Documents