The United Nations Human Rights Committee has invited States Parties to indicate in their reports the extent to which they are applying the Standard Minimum Rules.8 At least some of these principles have been determined to be minimum standards regarding the conditions of detention that must be observed regardless of a level of development.9 Rule 11 State Party’s relates to the provision of lighting to prisoners in areas where detained persons are required to live or work. Mr JA was not required to live or work in the CUDC cell in which he was detained. As noted above, he was detained there for approximately 27 hours on 1 May until 3 May 2008 and then approximately 21 hours on 7 and 8 May 2008. There is no information before the Commission, aside from Mr assertion, to JA’s support his claim that the CUDC cell in which he was detained did not have natural light. Conversely, there is material before the Commission which suggests that the CUDC cells have adequate natural and artificial light. In relation to Mr claim that the light in his cell was left on constantly, it is JA’s unclear based upon the material before the Commission whether this in fact occurred. I note that Defence denies this allegation and claims that the light was turned off at night. For the reasons outlined above, I find that the act or practice that is alleged to have breached Mr human rights JA’s has not been established within the meaning of section 29(3)(b)(i) of the AHRC Act. Adequacy of clothing, bedding, and heating Mr JA alleges that when he was taken into detention, his civilian clothes were taken away from him and he was not given adequate replacement clothing. Mr JA also claims that on 1 or 2 May 2008 he asked for an additional blanket and was not given one. Mr JA also claims that the cell he was held in did not have heating and that he was required to sleep on a concrete block.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has invited States Parties to indicate in their reports the extent to which they are applying the Standard Minimum Rules.8 At least some of these principles have been determined to be minimum standards regarding the conditions of detention that must be observed regardless of a State Party’s level of development.9 Rule 11 relates to the provision of lighting to prisoners in areas where detained persons are required to live or work. Mr JA was not required to live or work in the CUDC cell in which he was detained. As noted above, he was detained there for approximately 27 hours on 1 May until 3 May 2008 and then approximately 21 hours on 7 and 8 May 2008. There is no information before the Commission, aside from Mr JA’s assertion, to support his claim that the CUDC cell in which he was detained did not have natural light. Conversely, there is material before the Commission which suggests that the CUDC cells have adequate natural and artificial light. In relation to Mr JA’s claim that the light in his cell was left on constantly, it is unclear based upon the material before the Commission whether this in fact occurred. I note that Defence denies this allegation and claims that the light was turned off at night. For the reasons outlined above, I find that the act or practice that is alleged to have breached Mr JA’s human rights has not been established within the meaning of section 29(3)(b)(i) of the AHRC Act. Adequacy of clothing, bedding, and heating Mr JA alleges that when he was taken into detention, his civilian clothes were taken away from him and he was not given adequate replacement clothing. Mr JA also claims that on 1 or 2 May 2008 he asked for an additional blanket and was not given one. Mr JA also claims that the cell he was held in did not have heating and that he was required to sleep on a concrete block.
2014%20AusHRC%2072%20JA%20v%20Cth%20%28Dept%20of%20Defence%29_WORD.docx