Message: Bronson Blessington and Matthew Elliott vs. Australia. Message N 1968/2010. The Views were adopted by the Committee on October 22, 2014.
In 2010, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Australia.
Subject of the message: sentencing minors to life imprisonment.
Substantive issues: cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; the essential objectives of the penitentiary system; the application of criminal legislation with retroactive effect; the right of minors to protection.
Legal positions of the Committee. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 21 (1992), in which it stated that the penitentiary system should not be solely punitive in nature and that it should, to a large extent, strive for the correction and social rehabilitation of the prisoner. The Committee emphasizes that this principle is of particular importance in the case of minors (paragraph 7.8 of the Views).
Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant requires States parties to provide children with such protection measures as are necessary in their status as minors. This provision takes into account the vulnerability and immaturity of children, as well as their development potential. The right of children to special treatment is also at the heart of art. 10, paragraphs 2 and 3 (b), as well as art. 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under the age of 18. The Committee considers that such an attitude towards minors, which corresponds to their age and legal status, does not allow for a definitive conclusion that the acts committed by a minor make him/her unredeemable for life and not deserving of release, regardless of future personal or social development. The Committee recalls paragraph "a" of art. 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that "neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment, which does not provide for the possibility of release, are imposed for crimes committed by persons under the age of 18." Although the main role of the Committee is to monitor compliance with the Covenant, the Committee considers this provision, which is included in an international treaty that has been ratified or adopted at an almost universal level, including the State party, to be a valuable source of interpretation of the Covenant in the present case (paragraph 7.11 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances. The Committee notes that, as a result of the application of Annex 1 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and subsequent legislation, the authors must serve 30 years of their life sentence before they can apply for a limited sentence.; Consideration of this application will be limited to the imposition of a non-parole period, and only after the expiration of the non-parole period, the New South Wales State Parole Board may release the authors if there is an imminent threat of their death or physical disability (paragraph 7.6 of the Considerations).
The Committee considers that the imposition of life imprisonment on the authors as minors may be compatible with article 7, read in conjunction with paragraphs 3 of articles 10 and 24 of the Covenant, only if there is a possibility of reviewing the punishment and the prospect of release, despite the gravity of the crime they committed and the circumstances surrounding it. This does not mean that an exemption should necessarily be granted. This means that release should not be just a purely theoretical possibility and that the review procedure should be thorough, which will allow the internal authorities to assess the concrete progress in correcting the authors and the grounds for further detention, taking into account that they were 14 and 15 years old respectively at the time of the commission of the crime (paragraph 7.7 of the Considerations).
Taking into account the established long period after which the authors will be eligible to apply for parole, the restrictive conditions imposed by law to obtain such release, and the authors' minor age at the time of their crimes, the Committee considers that the penalty of life imprisonment, which currently applies in Russia, is In relation to the authors, it does not comply with the State party's obligations under article 7, read in conjunction with paragraphs 3 of articles 10 and 24 of the Covenant (paragraph 7.12 of the Views).
Conclusions of the Committee. The Human Rights Committee considers that the State party violated the authors' rights under articles 7, 10, paragraph 3, and 24 of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Views).