GENEVA - The UN Committee against Torture has found that Australia failed to protect an Iranian asylum seeker from torture and ill-treatment during his years-long detention, first in offshore processing facilities in Papua New Guinea, and later in mainland Australia, violating its international obligations under the Convention against Torture.
The Committee published its Decision today after reviewing a case involving an asylum seeker who arrived on Christmas Island, an Australian external territory near Indonesia, by boat in 2013 after fleeing Iran in fear of persecution. Rather than having his protection claim assessed in Australia, the authorities transferred him to Manus Island Regional Processing Centre in Papua New Guinea as part of Australia's migration control arrangements. According to the complainant, he was held on Manus Island for about three years in harsh conditions and subjected to serious violence, including having his throat slit by a security guard.
He was later transferred to Australia in 2019 for medical treatment but remained in immigration detention for almost three years, despite his serious physical and mental conditions, before eventually being released into the community on a bridging visa in 2022.
Australia contested the complaint, arguing that it did not exercise effective control over detention facilities in Papua New Guinea and that responsibility for day-to-day operations rested with the host State. The State Party further submitted that the complainant received appropriate medical and mental health care, that his detention in Australia was lawful and subject to review, and that he was no longer detained at the time the Committee considered the case.
After examining the information provided by both parties, the Committee rejected Australia's jurisdictional arguments. The Committee emphasised that Australia's funding, management and contracting of services at Manus Regional Processing Centre, together with its policy decision to transfer asylum seekers there, were sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Convention. It underscored that States Parties remain bound by the Convention wherever they exercise effective control over individuals, including through arrangements put in place beyond their borders. The Committee's position is in line with UN Human Rights Committee's landmark decisions on another two cases regarding Australia's processing centre in Nauru.
"Human rights protection and international law obligations do not disappear when detention facilities are relocated offshore," said Committee member Jorge Contesse.
"Geography is not the test, but whether a State has placed a person in a situation where it has the power to prevent harm and fails to do so," Contesse said, adding that, "Where a State creates and maintains a system of offshore detention and retains decisive influence over the conditions, it remains responsible under international law."
The Committee found that Australia failed to take effective measures to prevent torture and ill-treatment during the complainant's detention in Papua New Guinea. It noted the absence of any demonstrated effort to protect him from violence, to ensure that the attempted killing was investigated and those responsible held accountable, or to provide adequate rehabilitation and medical care. The Committee further recalled its longstanding concerns about Australia's offshore processing policy, which has repeatedly exposed asylum seekers to prolonged detention, uncertainty, and conditions causing severe physical and mental suffering. It concluded that the combination of harsh conditions, protracted detention and lack of protection amounted to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of articles 2(1) and 16 of the Convention.
The Committee also examined the complainant's subsequent immigration detention in Australia and concluded that the prolonged deprivation of liberty, which was mandatory, administrative and not based on individualized assessment, amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It found that Australia failed to demonstrate that the detention was reasonable, necessary, or proportionate, particularly in light of the complainant's prior years of offshore detention and documented vulnerability, including his acute medical needs. The Committee emphasised that no specific or compelling justification had been provided for detaining him for such a prolonged period.
The Committee called on Australia to provide the complainant with full redress, including compensation and rehabilitation, to afford him an opportunity to have his protection claims examined by the competent authorities, and to adopt guarantees of non-repetition to prevent similar violations in the future.
