The United Nations Committee against Torture recently determined that Australia violated the Convention against Torture in handling the case of an Iranian asylum seeker, referred to as Mr A. The committee’s findings highlight serious concerns over Australia’s offshore processing policy and prolonged immigration detention practices. The full details of the findings are reported here.
Mr A fled Iran in 2013 due to fears of persecution and arrived in Australia by boat within the same year. Instead of processing his asylum application domestically, Australian authorities transferred him to the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre in Papua New Guinea, a move consistent with their offshore processing policy. During his approximately three-year stay at Manus Island, Mr A endured unsafe conditions and serious violence.
In 2019, Mr A was moved back to the Australian mainland for medical reasons, only to remain in immigration detention for nearly three more years. It wasn’t until 2022 that he was released on a bridging visa, marking an end to years of hardship. Despite Australia’s assertions that Papua New Guinea was in control of Manus Island’s operations, the UN committee concluded that Australia retained effective control through funding, policy decisions, and contracted operations, thereby not absolving it of its responsibilities under the convention.
This ruling is consistent with past assessments of Australia’s offshore detention practices, including those concerning the Nauru processing centre, illustrating a broader pattern of treatment that the UN finds problematic. The prolonged detention Mr A faced, both offshore and within Australia, underscores systemic flaws in the application of immigration laws. After his initial arrival in 2013, Mr A experienced 18 months in detention before gaining community release via a bridging visa. Despite living in the community for six years, his visa’s expiration in 2017 led to renewed detention, compounded by charges that were largely dismissed or resulted in no conviction.
The UN committee’s ruling emphasizes that Mr A’s detention lacked an individualized assessment and was mainly administrative. The decision rebukes the notion that such measures were reasonable or necessary, especially given his vulnerable medical condition and prior offshore experiences. The breach of articles 2(1) and 16 of the Convention against Torture underscores the need for comprehensive reform.
The committee has urged Australia to provide Mr A with full redress, including compensation and rehabilitation and to ensure his protection claim receives due attention. This decision calls for systemic changes to prevent similar occurrences, reflecting sustained international scrutiny over Australia’s immigration policies. Legal professionals and policymakers alike will be closely examining the implications of this ruling and its potential to influence future legislative adjustments and humanitarian commitments.