III. JURISPRUDENCE

ICCPR

•	Oulajin and Kaiss v. The Netherlands (406/1990 and 426/1990), ICCPR, A/48/40 vol. II (23 October 1992) 131 (CCPR/C/46/D/406/1990/426/1990) at paras. 7.3-7.5 and Individual Opinion by Messrs. Kurt Herndl, Rein Mullerson, Birame N'Diaye and Waleed Sadi, 9.

...

7.3 In its constant jurisprudence, the Committee has held that although a State party is not required by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to adopt social security legislation, if it does, such legislation and the application thereof must comply with article 26 of the Covenant. The principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law implies that any distinctions in the enjoyment of benefits must be based on reasonable and objective criteria.3/

7.4 With respect to the Child Benefit Act, the State party submits that there are objective differences between one's own children and foster children, which justify different treatment under the Act. The Committee recognizes that the distinction is objective and need only focus on the reasonableness criterion. Bearing in mind that certain limitations in the granting of benefits may be inevitable, the Committee has considered whether the distinction between one's own children and foster children under the Child Benefit Act, in particular the requirement that a foster parent be involved in the upbringing of the foster, as a precondition to the granting of benefits, is unreasonable. In the light of the explanations given by the State party, the Committee finds that the distinctions made in the Child Benefit Act are not incompatible with article 26 of the Covenant.

7.5 The distinction made in the Child Benefit Act between own children and foster children precludes the granting of benefits for foster children who are not living with the applicant foster parent. In this connection, the authors allege that the application of this requirement is, in practice, discriminatory, since it affects migrant workers more than Dutch nationals. The Committee...observes…that the Child Benefit Act makes no distinction between Dutch nationals and non-nationals, such as migrant workers. The Committee considers that the scope of article 26 of the Covenant does not extend to differences resulting from the equal application of common rules in the allocation of benefits.

...

__________________

Notes

...

3/ See Broeks v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 172/1984, and Zwaan-de Vries v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 182/1984, Views adopted on 9 April 1987, paragraphs 12.4; Vos v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 218/1986, Views adopted on 29 March 1989, paragraph 11.3; Pauger v. Austria, Communication No. 415/1990, Views adopted on 26 March 1992, paragraph 7.2; Sprenger v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 395/1990, Views adopted on 31 March 1992, paragraph 7.2.

__________________

Individual Opinion by Messrs. Kurt Herndl, Rein Mullerson, Birame N'Diaye and Waleed Sadi

We concur in the Committee's finding that the facts do not reveal a violation of article 26 of the Covenant...[W]e consider it proper to briefly expand on the Committee's rationale...

It is obvious that while article 26 of the Covenant postulates an autonomous right to non-
discrimination, the implementation of this right may take different forms, depending on the nature of the right to which the principle of non-discrimination is applied.

With regard to the application of article 26 of the Covenant in the field of economic and social rights, it is evident that social security legislation, which is intended to achieve aims of social justice, necessarily must make distinctions. It is for the legislature of each country, which best knows the socio-economic needs of the society concerned, to try to achieve social justice in the concrete context. Unless the distinctions made are manifestly discriminatory or arbitrary, it is not for the Committee to reevaluate the complex socio-economic data and substitute its judgment for that of the legislatures of States parties.

Furthermore it would seem to us that it is essential to keep one's sense of proportion. With respect to the present cases, we note that the authors are asking for child benefits not only for their own children - to which they are entitled under the legislation of the Netherlands - but also for siblings, nephews and nieces, for whom they claim to have accepted responsibility and hence consider them as dependents. On the basis of the information before the Committee, such demands appear to run counter to a general sense of proportion, and their denial by the government concerned cannot be considered unreasonable in view of the budget limitations which exist in any social security system. While States parties to the Covenant may wish to extend benefits to such wide-ranging categories of dependents, article 26 of the Covenant does not require them to do so.

•	Mónaco v. Argentina (400/1990), ICCPR, A/50/40 vol. II (3 April 1995) 10 (CCPR/C/53/D/400/1990) at paras. 2.1-2.4, 10.4, 10.5, 11.1 and 11.2.

...

2.1 On 5 February 1977, Ximena Vicario's mother was taken with the then nine-month-old child to the Headquarters of the Federal Police (Departamento Central de la Policía Federal) in Buenos Aires. Her father was apprehended in the city of Rosario on the following day. The parents subsequently disappeared, and although the National Commission on Disappeared Persons investigated their case after December 1983, their whereabouts were never established. Investigations initiated by the author herself finally led, in 1984, to locating Ximena Vicario, who was then residing in the home of a nurse, S.S., who claimed to have been taking care of the child after her birth. Genetic blood tests (histocompatibilidad) revealed that the child was, with a probability of 99.82 per cent, the author's granddaughter.

2.2 In the light of the above, the prosecutor ordered the preventive detention of S.S., on the ground that she was suspected of having committed the offences of concealing the whereabouts of a minor (ocultamiento de menor) and forgery of documents...

2.3 On 2 January 1989, the author was granted "provisional" guardianship of the child; S.S., however, immediately applied for visiting rights, which were granted by order of the Supreme Court on 5 September 1989. In this decision, the Supreme Court also held that the author had no standing in the proceedings about the child's guardianship since, under article 19 of Law 10.903, only the parents and the legal guardian have standing and may directly participate in the proceedings.

2.4 On 23 September 1989 the author, basing herself on psychiatric reports concerning the effects of the visits of S.S. on Ximena Vicario, requested the court to rule that such visits should be discontinued. Her action was dismissed on account of lack of standing. On appeal, this decision was upheld on 29 December 1989 by the Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional Federal of Buenos Aires...

...

10.4 As to Ximena Vicario's and her grandmother's right to privacy, it is evident that the abduction of Ximena Vicario, the falsification of her birth certificate and her adoption by S.S. entailed numerous acts of arbitrary and unlawful interference with their privacy and family life, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant. The same acts also constituted violations of article 23, paragraph 1, and article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant. These acts, however, occurred prior to the entry into force of the Covenant and of the Optional Protocol for Argentina on 8 November 1986, 4/ and the Committee is not in a position ratione temporis to emit a decision in their respect. The Committee could, however, make a finding of a violation of the Covenant if the continuing effects of those violations were found themselves to constitute violations of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the grave violations of the Covenant committed by the military regime of Argentina in this case have been the subject of numerous proceedings before the courts of the State party, which have ultimately vindicated the right to privacy and family life of both Ximena Vicario and her grandmother. As to the visiting rights initially granted to S.S., the Committee observes that the competent courts of Argentina first endeavoured to determine the facts and balance the human interests of the persons involved and that in connection with those investigations a number of measures were adopted to give redress to Ximena Vicario and her grandmother, including the termination of the regime of visiting rights accorded to S.S, following the recommendations of psychologists and Ximena Vicario's own wishes. Nevertheless, these outcomes appear to have been delayed by the initial denial of standing of Mrs. Mónaco to challenge the visitation order.

10.5 While the Committee appreciates the seriousness with which the Argentine courts endeavoured to redress the wrongs done to Ms. Vicario and her grandmother, it observes that the duration of the various judicial proceedings extended for over 10 years, and that some of the proceedings have not yet been completed. The Committee notes that in the meantime Ms. Vicario, who was 7 years of age when found, reached the age of maturity (18 years) in 1994, and that it was not until 1993 that her legal identity as Ximena Vicario was officially recognized. In the specific circumstances of this case, the Committee finds that the protection of children stipulated in article 24 of the Covenant required the State party to take affirmative action to grant Ms. Vicario prompt and effective relief from her predicament. In this context, the Committee recalls its General Comment on article 24, 5/ in which it stressed that every child has a right to special measures of protection because of his/her status as a minor; those special measures are additional to the measures that States are required to take under article 2 to ensure that everyone enjoys the rights provided for in the Covenant. Bearing in mind the suffering already endured by Ms. Vicario, who lost both of her parents under tragic circumstances imputable to the State party, the Committee finds that the special measures required under article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant were not expeditiously applied by Argentina, and that the failure to recognize the standing of Mrs. Mónaco in the guardianship and visitation proceedings and the delay in legally establishing Ms. Vicario's real name and issuing identity papers also entailed a violation of article 24, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, which is designed to promote recognition of the child's legal personality.

...

11.1 The Human Rights Committee...is of the view that the facts which have been placed before it reveal a violation by Argentina of article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant.

11.2 In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author and her granddaughter with an effective remedy, including compensation from the State for the undue delay of the proceedings and resulting suffering to which they were subjected. Furthermore, the State party is under an obligation to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.

__________________

Notes

...

4/ See the Committee's decision on admissibility concerning Communication No. 275/1988, S.E. v. Argentina, declared inadmissible ratione temporis on 26 March 1990, para. 5.3.

5/ General Comment No. 17, adopted at the thirty-fifth session of the Committee, in 1989.

__________________

•	Buckle v. New Zealand (858/1999), ICCPR, A/56/40 vol. II (25 October 2000) 175 at paras. 2.1, 2.2 and 9.1-9.3.

...

2.1 The author's six children (aged at the time between 8 and 1 year of age) were removed from her care in 1994 allegedly because of her inability to look after them adequately.

2.2 In August 1997 the author appealed, to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the New Zealand Family Court that had deprived her of her guardianship rights. On 25 February 1998, the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the Family Court. The author's request for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of February 1998 was rejected. Notwithstanding this Mrs Buckle travelled to the United Kingdom and secured a hearing in May 1998, before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The application was unsuccessful.

...

9.1 Concerning the author's claim under article 17 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the information provided by the State party with respect to the extensive procedures followed in the author's case. The Committee also notes that the situation is under regular review and that the author has been given the opportunity to retain access to her children. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the interference with the author's family has not been unlawful or arbitrary and is thus not in violation of article 17 of the Covenant.

9.2 The author has also claimed a violation of article 23 of the Covenant. The Committee recognizes the weighty nature of the decision to separate mother and children, but notes that the information before it shows that the State party's authorities and the Courts considered carefully all the material presented to them and acted with the best interests of the children in mind and that nothing indicates that they violated their duty under article 23 to protect the family.

9.3 With respect to the alleged violation of article 24 of the Covenant, the Committee is of the opinion that the author's arguments and the information before it do not raise issues that would be separate from the above findings.

•	Bakhtiyari v. Australia (1069/2002), ICCPR,A/59/40 vol. II (29 October 2003) 301 (CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002) at paras. 2.1-2.3, 2.5-2.8, 2.10, 2.12, 2.14, 9.3, 9.5-9.7, 10 and 11.

...

2.1 In March 1998, Mr Bakhtiyari left Afghanistan for Pakistan where he was subsequently joined by his wife, their five children, and Mrs. Bakhtiyari's brother. Rather than being smuggled to Germany as he had understood, Mr Bakhtiyari was instead smuggled by an unidentified smuggler to Australia through Indonesia, losing contact with his wife, children and brother-in-law. He arrived unlawfully in Australia by boat on 22 October 1999. On arrival, he was detained in immigration detention at the Port Hedland immigration detention facility. On 29 May 2000, he lodged an application for a protection visa. On 3 August 2000, he was granted a protection visa on the basis of Afghan nationality and Hazara ethnicity.

2.2 Apparently unknown to Mr Bakhtiyari, Mrs. Bakhtiyari, her children and her brother were also subsequently brought to Australia by the same smuggler, arriving unlawfully by boat on 1 January 2001 and were taken into immigration detention at the Woomera immigration detention facility. On 21 February 2001, they applied for a protection visa, which was refused by a delegate of the Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") on 22 May 2001 on the ground that language analysis suggested that she was Pakistani rather than Afghan, as claimed by her, and she was unable to give adequate response to questions concerning Afghanistan. On 26 July 2001, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") dismissed their application for review of the refusal. The RRT accepted that Mrs. Bakhtiyari was Hazara, but was not satisfied that she was an Afghan national, finding her credibility "remarkably poor" and her testimony "implausible" and "contradictory".

2.3 Some time after July 2001, Mr Bakhtiyari found out from an Hazara detainee who had been released from the Woomera detention facility that his wife and children had arrived in Australia and were being held at Woomera. On 6 August 2001, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department"), as a matter of standard procedure following an unsuccessful appeal to the RRT, assessed the case in the light of the Minister's public interest guidelines,1/ which include consideration of international obligations, including the Covenant. It was decided that Mrs. Bakhtiyari and the children did not meet the test of the guidelines. In October 2001, Mrs. Bakhtiyari applied to the Minister for Immigration requesting that he exercise his discretion under s.417 of the Migration Act to substitute, in the public interest, a more favourable decision for that of the RRT, on the basis of the family relationship with Mr Bakhtiyari.

...

2.5 On 2 April 2002, the Minister declined to exercise his discretion in Mrs. Bakhtiyari's favour. On 8 April 2002, an application was made to the High Court of Australia in its original jurisdiction constitutionally to review the decisions of government officials. The application challenged (i) the RRT's decision on the ground that it should have been aware of Mr Bakhtiyari's presence on a protection visa, and (ii) the Minister's decision under s. 417 of the Migration Act. The application sought to require the Minister to grant a visa to Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children based on the visa already granted to Mr Bakhtiyari.

2.6 On 12 April 2002, as a consequence of receiving information that Mr Bakhtiyari was not an Afghan farmer, as he had claimed, but rather a plumber and electrician from Quetta, Pakistan, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department") issued him a notice of intention to consider cancellation of his visa and provided him with an opportunity to comment on the allegations. On 26 April 2002, Mrs. Bakhtiyari made a further request to the Minister under s.417 of the Migration Act, but was informed that such matters were generally not referred to the Minister while litigation was underway.

2.7 On 11 June 2002, the High Court granted an Order Nisi in respect of the application of Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children, finding an arguable case to have been established. On 27 June 2002, some 30 detainees, amongst them the eldest sons of Mrs. Bakhtiyari, Almadar and Mentazer, escaped from the Woomera facility. On 16 July 2002, Mrs. Bakhtiyari again made a request to the Minister under s.417 of the Migration Act, but was again informed that such matters were generally not referred to the Minister while litigation was under way. On 18 July 2002, the two boys who had escaped gave themselves up at the British Consulate in Melbourne, Australia, and sought asylum. The request was refused and they were returned to the Woomera facility.

2.8 On 2 August 2002, an application was filed with the Family Court in Adelaide on behalf of Almadar and Montazer, seeking orders against the Minister under s.67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 2/ for the release of the boys from detention and for them to be made available for examination by a psychologist.

...

2.10 On 9 October 2002, the Family Court (Dawe J) dismissed the application made to it, finding it had no jurisdiction to make orders in respect of children in immigration detention. On 5 December 2002, Mr Bakhtiyari's protection visa was cancelled, and he was taken into custody at the Villawood immigration detention facility, Sydney. The same day he lodged an application for review of this decision with the RRT, as well as an application with the Department for bridging visa seeking his release pending determination of the RRT proceedings. On 9 December 2002, a Minister's delegate refused the request for a bridging visa. On 18 December 2002, the Migration Review Tribunal upheld the decision to refuse a bridging visa.

...

2.12 On 4 February 2003, the High Court, by a majority of five justices against two, refused the application of Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children to be granted a protection visa on account of Mr Bakhtiyari's status. The Court found that as the Minister was under no obligation to make a new decision, no object would be served in setting aside his decision, and in any event it was not tainted by illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error. Likewise, the RRT's decision on their appeal was not tainted by any jurisdictional error.

...

2.14 On 19 June 2003, the Full Bench of the Family Court held, by a majority, that the Court did have jurisdiction to make orders against the Minister, including release from detention, if that was in the best interests of the child. The case was accordingly remitted for hearing as a matter of urgency as to what orders would be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the children. On 8 July 2003, the Full Bench of the Family Court granted the Minister leave to appeal to the High Court, but rejected the Minister's application for a stay on the order for rehearing as a matter of urgency. On 5 August 2003, the Family Court (Strickland J) dismissed an application for interlocutory relief, that is, that the children be released in advance of the trial of the question of what final orders would be in their best interests. On 25 August 2003, the Full Bench of the Family Court allowed an appeal and ordered the release of all of the children forthwith, pending resolution of the final application. They were released the same day and have resided with carers in Adelaide since.

...

9.3 Concerning Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children, the Committee observes that Mrs. Bakhtiyari has been detained in immigration detention for two years and ten months, and continues to be detained, while the children remained in immigration detention for two years and eight months until their release on interim orders of the Family Court. Whatever justification there may have been for an initial detention for the purposes of ascertaining identity and other issues, the State party has not, in the Committee's view, demonstrated that their detention was justified for such an extended period. Taking into account in particular the composition of the Bakhtiyari family, the State party has not demonstrated that other, less intrusive, measures could not have achieved the same end of compliance with the State party's immigration policies by, for example, imposition of reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions which would take into account the family's particular circumstances. As a result, the continuation of immigration detention for Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children for length of time described above, without appropriate justification, was arbitrary and contrary to article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

...

9.5 As to the children, the Committee observes that until the decision of the Full Bench of the Family Court on 19 June 2003, which held that it had jurisdiction under child welfare legislation to order the release of children from immigration detention, the children were in the same position as their mother, and suffered a violation of their rights under article 9, paragraph 4, up to that moment on the same basis. The Committee considers that the ability for a court to order a child's release if considered in its best interests, which subsequently occurred (albeit on an interim basis), is sufficient review of the substantive justification of detention to satisfy the requirements of article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant. Accordingly, the violation of article 9, paragraph 4, with respect to the children came to an end with the Family Court's finding of jurisdiction to make such orders.

9.6 As to the claim under articles 17 and 23, paragraph 1, the Committee observes that to separate a spouse and children arriving in a State from a spouse validly resident in a State may give rise to issues under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant. In the present case, however, the State party contends that, at the time Mrs. Bakhtiyari made her application to the Minister under section 417 of the Migration Act, there was already information on Mr Bakhtiyari's alleged visa fraud before it. As it remains unclear whether the attention of the State party's authorities was drawn to the existence of the relationship prior to that point, the Committee cannot regard it as arbitrary that the State party considered it inappropriate to unite the family at that stage. The Committee observes, however, that the State party intends at present to remove Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children as soon as "reasonably practicable", while it has no current plans to do so in respect of Mr Bakhtyari, who is currently pursuing domestic proceedings. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, namely the number and age of the children, including a newborn, the traumatic experiences of Mrs. Bakhtiyari and the children in long-term immigration detention in breach of article 9 of the Covenant, the difficulties that Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children would face if returned to Pakistan without Mr Bakhtiyari and the absence of arguments by the State party to justify removal in these circumstances, the Committee takes the view that removing Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children without awaiting the final determination of Mr Bakhtiyari's proceedings would constitute arbitrary interference in the family of the authors, in violation of articles 17, paragraph 1, and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

9.7 Concerning the claim under article 24, the Committee considers that the principle that in all decisions affecting a child, its best interests shall be a primary consideration, forms an integral part of every child's right to such measures of protection as required by his or her status as a minor, on the part of his or her family, society and the State, as required by article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The Committee observes that in this case children have suffered demonstrable, documented and on-going adverse effects of detention suffered by the children, and in particular the two eldest sons, up until the point of release on 25 August 2003, in circumstances where that detention was arbitrary and in violation of article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. As a result, the Committee considers that the measures taken by the State party had not, until the Full Bench of the Family Court determined it had welfare jurisdiction with respect to the children, been guided by the best interests of the children, and thus revealed a violation of article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, that is, of the children's right to such measures of protection as required by their status as minors up that point in time.

10. The Human Rights Committee...is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee reveal violations by Australia of articles 9, paragraphs 1 and 4, and 24, paragraph 1, and, potentially, of articles 17, paragraph 1, and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

11. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. As to the violation of article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4, continuing up to the present time with respect to Mrs. Bakhtiyari, the State party should release her and pay her appropriate compensation. So far as concerns the violations of articles 9 and 24 suffered in the past by the children, which came to an end with their release on 25 August 2003, the State party is under an obligation to pay appropriate compensation to the children. The State party should also refrain from deporting Mrs. Bakhtiyari and her children while Mr. Bakhtiyari is pursuing domestic proceedings, as any such action on the part of the State party would result in violations of articles 17, paragraph 1, and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

___________________

Notes

1/ The Guidelines, provided by the authors, provide that "public interest" factors may arise in a number of circumstances, including where there are circumstances that provide a sound basis for a significant threat to a person s personal security, human rights or human dignity upon return to their country of origin, where there are circumstances that may bring the State party s obligations under the Covenant, the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment into consideration, or where there are unintended but particularly unfair or unreasonable consequences of the legislation.

2/ Section 67ZC provides:

"(1) In addition to the jurisdiction that a court has under this Part in relation to children, the court also has jurisdiction to make orders relating to the welfare of children.

(2) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1) in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration."

___________________

For dissenting opinion in this context, see Bakhtiyari v. Australia (1069/2002), ICCPR, A/59/40 vol. II (29 October 2003) 301 (CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002) at Individual Opinion by Nigel Rodley, 319.