The case is Sharif Kazal v. Australia. Views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated July 7, 2023. Communication No. 3088/2017.
In 2017, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Australia.
The author noted that the New South Wales Government has established an Independent Anti-Corruption Commission. According to the law, she had the authority to investigate cases of corruption in the public sector. Although the conclusion of the Independent Commission did not entail criminal consequences, it affected the personal lives of the persons under investigation, tarnishing their reputation with suspicion of involvement in the criminal case. The author argued that the public hearings conducted by the Independent Commission and the conclusion that his conduct could have constituted a crime, which, in turn, the author had no procedural opportunity to challenge, were a violation of his right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference in his personal life. The Committee found a violation of article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Committee's legal position: article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for the right of everyone to be protected from arbitrary or unlawful interference in his personal and family life, arbitrary or unlawful attacks on the inviolability of his home or the secrecy of his correspondence, as well as from unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation. He notes that the term "illegal" means that "interference cannot take place at all, except in cases provided for by law." The UN Human Rights Committee recalls that the concept of "arbitrary interference" should ensure that even interference permitted by law is consistent with the provisions, goals and objectives of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, in any case, is justified in specific circumstances. Consequently, any interference with personal and family life must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and necessary in the circumstances of each specific case. The UN Human Rights Committee recalls that article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects personal dignity and reputation, and participating States are required to ensure that appropriate legislation is adopted for this purpose, as well as to ensure that everyone is provided with effective protection from any unlawful attacks and effective remedies against those who commits such attacks (paragraph 8.3 of the Considerations).
Even in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, any interference with personal life must be proportionate to the legitimate aim set and necessary in the circumstances of each particular case (paragraph 8.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the decision of the Independent Commission to hold public hearings and make public its conclusion, in which it concluded that the author had tried to improperly influence the impartial performance of official functions of a public official, despite the fact that the author had no opportunity to challenge this conclusion in any national body, and the Independent The commission did not provide any justification for its decision to hold public hearings and make the results public., It amounts to an arbitrary interference with the author's right to privacy. The UN Human Rights Committee considered that the decision to hold public hearings without providing the author with due process guarantees could not be considered proportionate and necessary to achieve the desired goal in the specific circumstances of the case, especially given the author's claim that the publication of the Independent Commission's opinion had damaged his reputation and the ability to run a family business (paragraph 8.5 Considerations).
The Committee's conclusions: The investigation conducted by the Independent Commission and its unfavorable public findings against the author, which he could not challenge, constituted a violation of the author's rights under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.