Help us improve this website

Take part in an online card sorting activity to help us develop a new website structure.

Human Rights Communications

The 7 United Nations human rights treaties to which Australia is a party set out the Australian Government's obligations to act or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups that are recognised in those treaties.

Each of these treaties has a committee (or 'treaty body') that monitors States Parties compliance with their treaty obligations and decides on complaints against states when states have accepted the relevant complaints processes. Committees are composed of independent experts elected by States Parties.

Australia is a party to the complaints (or 'communications') mechanisms in relation to the following 5 human rights treaties:

Making a human rights complaint

Any individual can make a complaint against Australia if they are concerned that their human rights under these treaties have been violated. The Human Rights Bodies—Complaints Procedures page on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights website provides further information.

A complaint must meet the formal requirements of admissibility before the merits of the complaint can be considered. A key requirement is that the individual making the complaint has exhausted all domestic remedies. This means that all avenues of appeal in Australia should be complete before submitting a complaint to a committee.

The Office of International Law in the Attorney-General's Department coordinates the Australian Government's response to these communications and prepares Australia's submissions to the relevant committee.

Committee views and government responses

Once a committee has considered a complaint, the committee transmits its decision (known as 'views') to the author and state party, which may recommend a remedy if a violation has been found.

If the committee decides that a state party has violated a person's rights, it invites the state party to supply information about the steps it has taken to remedy the violation. The views of the committees are not binding under international law. However, Australia gives careful consideration, in good faith, to any adverse views when received. If the committee decides that the complaint is inadmissible or there has been no violation, the case is closed.

Published views are available from the website of the relevant committee:

The section below contains links to recently issued committee views and responses by the Australian Government.

If you are experiencing accessibility issues with the documents on this page, please contact InternationalHuman.RightsLaw@ag.gov.au for an alternative version.

Committee Against Torture

The section below contains links to recently issued committee views and responses by the Australian Government.

If you are experiencing accessibility issues with the documents on this page, please contact InternationalHuman.RightsLaw@ag.gov.au for an alternative version.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Iran. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Pakistan. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 2, 3, and 16 of the CAT if the author was returned to India. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 2, 3, and 16 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to China. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 1 and 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the communication was inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Vietnam. The Committee found the communication was inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Pakistan. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 1 and 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the communication inadmissible for lack of substantiation.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to China. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Pakistan. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee issued adverse views.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Afghanistan. The Committee issued adverse views.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia had violated article 14 of the CAT by preventing the author from bringing a claim in Australian courts based on foreign state immunities. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to China. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The authors alleged that Australia would violate articles 3 and 16 of the CAT if the authors were returned to China. The main author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee issued adverse views. The Australian Government has noted the views of the Committee.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to China. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to China, as he claimed to be a regular practitioner and leader of Falun Gong. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee issued adverse views. The Australian Government has noted the views of the Committee.

Human Rights Committee

The section below contains links to recently issued committee views and responses by the Australian Government.

If you are experiencing accessibility issues with the documents on this page, please contact InternationalHuman.RightsLaw@ag.gov.au for an alternative version.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 7 and 9 of the ICCPR if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The authors alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 6, 17, 24 and 27 of the ICCPR by failing to take adequate action to reduce emissions or pursue proper climate change adaptation measures on the Torres Strait Islands. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of articles 17 and 27.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 7 and 17 read in conjunction with article 23(1) of the ICCPR if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee issued adverse Views in respect of the author’s claim under article 17 read in conjunction with article 23(1).

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 6, 7, 9(1) and 17 of the ICCPR if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia violated articles 14 and 17 of the ICCPR in respect of an inquiry conducted by the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of article 17.

The authors alleged that Australia would violate articles 2(1), 7, 17, 23(1) and 24 of the ICCPR if they were returned to Nigeria. The authors’ applications for protections visas were refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 12(4), 17 and 23 of the ICCPR if they were returned to North Macedonia. The author was a long-term non-citizen resident of Australia whose permanent visa was cancelled due to serious criminal offending. The Committee issued adverse Views in respect of the author’s claim under Article 12(4).

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 26 of the ICCPR in respect of a series of legal proceedings involving the author in Australian courts. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia violated articles 2(1), 7, 9(1), 9(4), 10(1), 10(3), 17(1), 23, 26 and 27 of the ICCPR in the course of his detention, with the author having been detained after he was found not to be guilty of a criminal offence by reason of mental impairment. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of the author's claim under articles 7, 9(1), 9(4), 10(3) and 17.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 6, 7, 12 and 17 of the ICCPR by unintentionally publishing the personal information of the author on an Australian Government website. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of article 17, both read alone and in conjunction with article 2(3).

The Australian Government is not able to publish the Committee's views in this matter due to restrictions under domestic law. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The authors alleged that their detention on Christmas Island was arbitrary and that they did not have an avenue to challenge their detention. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of the authors' claims under articles 9(1), 9(4) and 24 of the ICCPR.

The author, on behalf of all members of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, claimed to be a victim of a violation of rights under articles 2(3), 19 and 26 of the ICCPR. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia failed to ensure an effective and independent investigation into the death of her son in violation of rights under articles 6(1), 2(3) and 14 of the ICCPR. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The Australian Government is not able to publish the Committee's Views or its response to the Committee, due to restrictions under domestic law.

The author alleged that compulsory voting in federal elections violated his rights under articles 2(1), 17, 18, 25 and 26 of the ICCPR. The Committee found no violation of the author's rights under the ICCPR.

The authors alleged that Australia had violated articles 7, 9 and 10 of the ICCPR in relation to their ongoing detention following arrival in Australia by boat. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of Articles 7 and 9.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 9, 10, 14, 17 and 23 of the ICCPR in relation to his ongoing detention following arrival in Australia by boat. The Committee found the majority of the author's claims to be inadmissible. However it issued adverse views in respect of article 9.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2(1), 14 and 26 of the ICCPR by prohibiting access to divorce proceedings for same-sex couples married overseas. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of article 26. The Committee did not examine the author's claims with respect to articles 2(1) and 14.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2(1), 2(3), 17 and 26 of the ICCPR by requiring her to be unmarried in order to change her sex on her birth certificate. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of articles 17 and 26.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22 and 26 of the ICCPR on the basis of his treatment in custody at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay and his imprisonment in Australia under the terms of a prison transfer arrangement. The Committee found the author's claims in relation to his treatment in custody at Guantanamo Bay to be inadmissible. However, it issued adverse views in respect of article 9.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 11, 14, 15 and 17 of the ICCPR in respect of a series of legal proceedings involving the author in Australian courts. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The authors alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 13, 26, 17, 23 and 24 of the ICCPR by requiring one of the authors to depart from Australia based on security concerns. The Committee issued adverse views.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23 and 24 of the ICCPR in respect of his visa cancellation on character grounds, immigration detention and subsequent removal to the United States. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of article 9.

The author alleged that Australia had violated article 14 of the CAT by preventing the author from bringing a claim in Australian courts based on foreign state immunities. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The authors alleged that Australia had violated articles 7, 10, 15 and 24 of the ICCPR due to legislative amendments which altered the conditions under which the authors could be released on parole. The authors alleged that these amendments effectively impose on them life sentences without the possibility of release, which is inappropriate given their status as minors at the time they committed their offences. The Committee issued adverse views.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 9, 13 and 14 of the ICCPR in relation to his extradition to the United States. The Committee issued adverse views.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 6, 7 and 18 of the ICCPR if the author was returned to Senegal. The author's application for a protection visa had been refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 6 and 26 of the ICCPR as the procedures, policies and institutions for the investigation of deaths involving the police force were not independent. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 7, 18 and 19 of the ICCPR if the author was returned to China. The author's application for a protection visa had been refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.

The author alleged that the actions of Victorian police during a raid violated articles 2, 7, 9, 10 and 17 of the ICCPR. The Committee issued adverse views.

The authors alleged that Australia had violated articles 7, 9, 10, 17, 23 and 24 of the ICCPR in relation to their ongoing detention following arrival in Australia by boat. The Committee issued adverse views.

The author alleged that Australia would violate article 7 of the ICCPR if the author was returned to Timor‑Leste. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 6, 7, 9, 14 and 17 of the ICCPR if the author was returned to China. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia had violated article 15 of the ICCPR in respect of a change of parole legislation that entered into force after the commission of the offence for which the author was serving life imprisonment. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

The author claimed that his rights under articles 2(1), 6(1), 7, 9(1) and 17 would be violated if he was returned to China. The Committee found there would be no violation.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 9, 12, 14, 17, 23 and 26 of the ICCPR in respect of his visa cancellation on character grounds. The author also alleged that Australia violated his mother’s and sister’s rights under articles 17 and 23 in relation to the author’s subsequent removal to Sweden.

The Committee issued adverse views in respect of articles 12, 17 and 23 of the Covenant, but found no violation of article 9. The Committee declared the matter inadmissible in respect of articles 2, 14 and 26. The Committee also found no violation of articles 17 and 23 in relation to the author’s mother and sister.

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

The section below contains links to recently issued committee views and responses by the Australian Government.

If you are experiencing accessibility issues with the documents on this page, please contact InternationalHuman.RightsLaw@ag.gov.au for an alternative version.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 5 and 6 of the CERD, through the application of social security legislation setting the same qualifying age for all Australians which was alleged to be inequitable on the basis of a lower life expectancy for Indigenous persons. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The section below contains links to recently issued committee views and responses by the Australian Government.

If you are experiencing accessibility issues with the documents on this page, please contact InternationalHuman.RightsLaw@ag.gov.au for an alternative version.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 5(3), 9(1)(b) and 30(1)(b), read in conjunction with articles 4(1) and (2) of the CRPD, by failing to provide audio description on free-to-air television for the blind and vision impaired community. The Committee issued adverse views in respect of articles 9(1)(b) and 30(1)(b) read in conjunction with articles 4(1) and (2).

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 21 due to his compulsory mental health treatment under Victorian legislation concerning mental health patients. The Committee considered the communication was inadmissible.

The author, an Irish national, alleged that Australia had violated articles 4, 5 and 18 of the CPRD because she was refused a work visa on the basis of health requirements. The Committee found that Australia had failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 4, 5 and 18.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 25, 26 and 28 of the CPRD. The Committee found that Australia had failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 25, 26 and 28 of the CPRD. The Committee found that Australia had failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 5, 12 and 21 of the CRPD because he was unable to serve as a juror owing to the unavailability of an Auslan interpreter. The Committee found the author’s claims in respect of article 12 inadmissible, however issued adverse views in relation to articles 5 and 21.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 4(1), 5(2) and (3), 9 and 29 of the CRPD because she was unable to vote by secret ballot in the 2013 federal election as a result of her disability. The Committee issued adverse views in relation to articles 4, 5, 9, and 29.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 4, 5(2), 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26 and 28 of the CRPD because he resides in a specialised rehabilitation and transitional accommodation service rather than in his preferred living arrangement in the community. The Committee considered that the communication was inadmissible.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the CRPD because of his detention and his treatment under Western Australian legislation concerning mentally impaired accused. The Committee issued adverse views in relation to articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 21 and 29 of the CRPD because of an alleged policy to exclude people who require Auslan interpretation from performing jury duty. The Committee issued adverse views in relation to articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 21 and 29.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 21 and 29 of the CRPD because of an alleged policy to exclude people who require Auslan interpretation from performing jury duty. The Committee issued adverse views in relation to articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 21 and 29.

The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 12, 13, 21 and 29 of the CRPD because of an alleged policy to exclude people who require Auslan interpretation from performing jury duty. The Committee found the matter inadmissible.

Related links

Universal Periodic Review
Human Rights
OHCHR Database of Communications concerning Australia

Related websites

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities