Shams et al. v. Australia

Comment:

Pursuant to rule 90 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, Committee member Mr. Ivan Shearer did not participate in adoption of the Committee’s decision. The text of an individual opinion signed by Committee member Ms. Ruth Wedgwood is appended to the Views. Under rule 86 of the rules of procedure, the Rapporteur for New Communications and Interim Measures requested the State party to inform it, as to whether the authors would be the subjects of removal prior to the last day of the following Committee session (2 April 2004). On 5 April 2004, having received no response to this request, the Rapporteur decided not to issue rule 86 requests in any of these cases, but left the requests pending subject to receiving further information from the State party and the authors. No further information was provided by any of the parties. On 20 July 2007, the Committee decided to join the consideration of the eight communications.

Substantive issues:

• arbitrary detention - arrest
• cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• effective remedy
• fair trial
• human dignity
• liberty of person
• refugee status
• torture

Substantive articles:

• 2 (3)
• 7
• 9 (1)
• 9 (4)
• 10 (1)

Procedural issues:

• exhaustion of domestic remedies

Procedural articles:

• 2
• 5 (2) (b)