Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CERD - Australia

Complete list of decisions

Case Name Comm Number Date Articles Outcome
Barbaro v. Australia 7/1995 14 August 1997   Inadmissible
Z.U.B.S. v. Australia 6/1995 19 August 1997 5 (a, c, e(i)) Admissible
B.M.S. v. Australia 8/1996 19 August 1997 5 (e(i)) Admissible
Barbaro v. Australia 12/1998 08 August 2000   Inadmissible
Hagan v. Australia 26/2002 20 March 2003 2(1c), 5, 6, 7 Violation
D.F. v. Australia 39/2006 22 February 2008 5(e)(iv), 2(1)(a) No Violation
D.R. v. Australia 42/2008 14 August 2009 2(1)(a), 5(d)(iii), 5(e)(iv), 5(e)(v) No Violation

Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.

CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

  1. requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
  2. decisions to deal jointly with cases
  3. admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
  4. final views.

Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".