inconsistent with the views of other human rights bodies about the right to liberty and security of the person. Australia acknowledges that the Committee is not required to interpret obligations under the Convention consistently with other United Nations human rights bodies but notes the importance of consistency in approach. Australia notes further that the Committee’s Guidelines on Article 14, to which the Committee referred in paragraph 8.7 of its Views, were not the subject of any consultation with States Parties. The Guidelines therefore are not reflective of States Parties’ views or interpretations of how best to implement obligations under Article 14. On this basis, such Guidelines carry little weight and should not be used to justify the Committee’s views on Article 14. Australia further respectfully disagrees with the Committee’s reference to absence of ‘the any criminal conviction’ as justifying its conclusion that Australia violated Article 14(1)(b). It is well-established that a deprivation of liberty need not necessarily arise out of a criminal conviction. On its face, Article 14(1)(b) prohibits unlawful or arbitrary deprivations of liberty and requires that any deprivation of liberty is in conformity with the law. As Australia submitted to the Committee, the author’s detention was in conformity with the law and was not in any way arbitrary. Article 15 The Committee also found that the author was subject to indefinite detention and that given irreparable psychological effects that indefinite detention may have on the ‘the detained person’, this amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of Article 15 of the Convention. Australia acknowledges its obligations under the Convention to take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It acknowledges that a State Party should consider the particular needs and possible vulnerability of the person concerned, including because of his or her disability, in taking such measures. In this respect, Australia reiterates its submissions about the additional support and monitoring provided to the author in Western Australia. However, Australia notes the author’s claims were based merely on an allegation of harm, for which the author did not provide any evidence. Australia reiterates that the Western Australian Department of Corrective Services’ records indicated only two
inconsistent with the views of other human rights bodies about the right to liberty and security of the person. Australia acknowledges that the Committee is not required to interpret obligations under the Convention consistently with other United Nations human rights bodies but notes the importance of consistency in approach. Australia notes further that the Committee’s Guidelines on Article 14, to which the Committee referred in paragraph 8.7 of its Views, were not the subject of any consultation with States Parties. The Guidelines therefore are not reflective of States Parties’ views or interpretations of how best to implement obligations under Article 14. On this basis, such Guidelines carry little weight and should not be used to justify the Committee’s views on Article 14. Australia further respectfully disagrees with the Committee’s reference to ‘the absence of any criminal conviction’ as justifying its conclusion that Australia violated Article 14(1)(b). It is well-established that a deprivation of liberty need not necessarily arise out of a criminal conviction. On its face, Article 14(1)(b) prohibits unlawful or arbitrary deprivations of liberty and requires that any deprivation of liberty is in conformity with the law. As Australia submitted to the Committee, the author’s detention was in conformity with the law and was not in any way arbitrary. Article 15 The Committee also found that the author was subject to indefinite detention and that given ‘the irreparable psychological effects that indefinite detention may have on the detained person’, this amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of Article 15 of the Convention. Australia acknowledges its obligations under the Convention to take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It acknowledges that a State Party should consider the particular needs and possible vulnerability of the person concerned, including because of his or her disability, in taking such measures. In this respect, Australia reiterates its submissions about the additional support and monitoring provided to the author in Western Australia. However, Australia notes the author’s claims were based merely on an allegation of harm, for which the author did not provide any evidence. Australia reiterates that the Western Australian Department of Corrective Services’ records indicated only two
Noble-v-Australia-Australian-Government-Response.DOCX