zh
stringlengths 1
4.19k
| en
stringlengths 1
3.42k
|
|---|---|
53. 因此，政府认为，被移民拘留的人可以向澳大利亚联邦法院或高等法院寻求对其拘留合法性的司法审查。政府提到《澳大利亚宪法》第 75 (v)段和《1901 年司法法》(联邦)，指出这些条款构成了法律机制，非公民可以通过这些机制质疑对他们的拘留的合法性。 | 53. Therefore, the Government argues that persons in immigration detention can seek judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention before the Federal Court or the High Court of Australia. The Government refers to paragraph 75 (v) of the Constitution of Australia and the Judiciary Act 1901 (Commonwealth), noting that these provisions constitute the legal mechanism through which non-citizens may challenge the lawfulness of their detention. |
54. 政府不同意来文方的说法，即由于高等法院在 Al-Kateb 诉 Godwin 一案中的裁决，非公民没有办法对行政拘留决定提出质疑。在 Al-Kateb 诉 Godwin 一案中，高等法院认为，《移民法》中要求拘留非公民直到他们被驱逐或获得签证的规定是合法的，即使驱逐在可预见的将来不太可行。非公民仍然有权根据《宪法》对联邦官员寻求补救。因此，该国政府认为，在 Al-Kateb 诉 Godwin 一案中的裁决并没有改变非公民根据澳大利亚法律质疑其受拘留合法性的能力。此外，非公民也能够通过人身保护令等行动质疑拘留他们的合法性。 | 54. The Government disagrees with the source’s claim that, as a result of the decision of the High Court in Al-Kateb v. Godwin, non-citizens have no means of challenging administrative detention decisions. In Al-Kateb v. Godwin the High Court held that the provisions of the Migration Act requiring the detention of non-citizens until they are removed or granted a visa, even if removal is not reasonably practicable in the foreseeable future, are lawful. The right to seek a remedy against an officer of the Commonwealth under the Constitution is still available to non-citizens. Therefore, the Government argues that the decision in Al-Kateb v. Godwin does not alter non-citizens’ ability to challenge the lawfulness of their detention under Australian law. Furthermore, non-citizens are also able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention through actions such as habeas corpus. |
55. 此外，政府称，根据《移民法》第 189 条的要求，Jaffarie 先生被拘留，因为他是非法的非公民。他之所以被拘留，是因为澳大利亚国内法的执行，而不是因为在国际义务下寻求保护，不像来文方所说，Jaffarie 先生被剥夺自由是因为行使了《世界人权宣言》第十四条所保障的权利。 | 55. Moreover, the Government argues that Mr. Jaffarie is detained, as required by section 189 of the Migration Act, because he is an unlawful non-citizen. He is being detained as a result of the implementation of the domestic laws of Australia, not as a consequence of seeking protection under the country’s international obligations, as the source claims by stating that Mr. Jaffarie has been deprived of his liberty as a result of the exercise of his rights guaranteed by article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. |
56. 关于来文提交人声称 Jaffarie 先生被剥夺自由违反了《公约》第二十六条，政府认为，《移民法》的目的是为了国家利益，规范非公民进入和居住在澳大利亚。从这个意义上说，《移民法》的目的是根据国籍区分非公民和公民。政府提到人权事务委员会关于《公约》下外国人地位的第 15 号一般性意见(1986 年)，认为应由政府决定谁可以进入其领土以及在什么条件下进入。因此，鉴于公民和非公民受到不同的待遇，因为澳大利亚公民不受移民拘留，政府认为，这种差别待遇是基于合法目的的合理和客观标准，因此不构成违反《公约》。 | 56. With regard to the source’s claim that Mr. Jaffarie has been deprived of his liberty in contravention of article 26 of the Covenant, the Government submits that the object of the Migration Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into and presence in Australia of non-citizens. In that sense, the purpose of the Migration Act is to differentiate on the basis of nationality between non-citizens and citizens. The Government refers to the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the Covenant, arguing that it is a matter for the Government to determine who may enter its territory and under what conditions. Thus, to the extent that citizens and non-citizens are treated differently, in that Australian citizens are not subject to immigration detention, the Government’s view is that such differential treatment is based on reasonable and objective criteria for a legitimate purpose and therefore does not amount to a violation of the Covenant. |
来文方的补充评论 | Additional comments from the source |
57. 政府的答复于 2019 年 9 月 18 日转交来文方。来文方于 2019 年 9 月 20 日提交了补充意见。 | 57. The reply of the Government was transmitted to the source on 18 September 2019. The source submitted additional comments on 20 September 2019. |
58. 来文提交人质疑政府的说法，即 Jaffarie 先生将自己的拘留永久化，他根据《移民法》第 48B 条向内政部长提出的请求阻止了他被驱逐出澳大利亚。相反，这一请求并不妨碍政府将 Jaffarie 先生移送到阿富汗。Jaffarie 先生根据第48B 节提出了请求，因为阿富汗的情况发生了变化，如果现在对他的永久保护签证申请进行评估，他的难民身份就有可能得到承认。来文方称，不管 Jaffarie 先生做了什么，内政部根据《移民法》驱逐 Jaffarie 先生的法定义务仍然存在。 | 58. The source contests the Government’s claim that Mr. Jaffarie is perpetuating his own detention and that his request under section 48B of the Migration Act to the Minister for Home Affairs is preventing his removal from Australia. To the contrary, such a request does not prevent the Government from removing Mr. Jaffarie to Afghanistan. Mr. Jaffarie made the request under section 48B because the circumstances in Afghanistan had changed in such a way as to allow the possibility that his refugee status would be recognized if his application for a permanent protection visa were to be assessed now. The source argues that statutory duty of the Department of Home Affairs under the Migration Actto remove Mr. Jaffarie remains regardless of the involvement of Mr. Jaffarie. |
59. 来文方称，政府规定了与受到不利安全评估的人有关的政策和准则，其适用没有灵活余地。据来文方称，没有任何得到这种评估的人因部长干预签证的发放或作出社区拘留安排而被转介或释放。 | 59. The source states that the Government sets out the inflexible application of policies and guidelines relating to persons subject to an adverse security assessment. According to the source, no person with such an assessment has been referred for or released as a result of a ministerial intervention regarding the granting of a visa or a community detention placement. |
60. 关于政府声称“在移民拘留中心拘留是管理非法非公民的最后手段”，来文方报告说，恰恰相反，拘留是对非法非公民的第一手段：根据《移民法》第 189条，必须拘留非法非公民。 | 60. With regard to the Government’s statement that “detention in an immigration detention centre is a last resort for the management of unlawful non-citizens”, the source reports that, quite to the contrary, detention is the first resort for unlawful non-citizens: under section 189 of the Migration Act, unlawful non-citizens must be detained. |
61. 此外，来文方指出，政府所描述的被拘留者可以对其拘留提出质疑的各种情况目前不适用于 Jaffarie 先生，他没有这些选择。来文方强调，根据澳大利亚法律，对 Jaffarie 先生的拘留目前是合法的，对他的任意无限期拘留是澳大利亚法律(立法和判例法)授权的。 | 61. Furthermore, the source notes that the various situations in which detainees can challenge their detention, as described by the Government, do not currently apply to Mr. Jaffarie, to whom those options are not available. The source underscores that Mr. Jaffarie’s detention is currently lawful under Australian law and his arbitrary open-ended detention is authorized by Australian law (both legislation and case law). |
62. 来文方质疑政府关于拘留审查机制的讨论。如前所述，这些机制在允许任意拘留的澳大利亚法律框架内运作。这些机制还在一套转介标准内运作，鉴于Jaffarie 的不利安全评估，他根本不可能满足这些标准。 | 62. The source contests the Government’s discussion on the detention review mechanisms. As previously noted, those mechanisms operate within the legal framework of Australia, which permits arbitrary detention. They also operate within a set of referral criteria that Mr. Jaffarie is extremely unlikely to meet given his adverse security assessment. |
讨论情况 | Discussion |
63. 工作组感谢来文提交人和政府提交的材料，并赞赏双方在本案中的合作和参与。来文方称，对 Jaffarie 先生的拘留是任意的，但没有援引工作组采用的任何类别。政府否认对 Jaffarie 先生的拘留是任意的。 | 63. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions and appreciates the cooperation and engagement of both parties in the present matter. The source has argued that the detention of Mr. Jaffarie is arbitrary without invoking any of the categories employed by the Working Group. The Government denies that the detention of Mr. Jaffarie is arbitrary. |
64. 工作组注意到，Jaffarie 先生于 2008 年 11 月 15 日以妻子担保的配偶签证合法进入澳大利亚，这一点没有争议。当时对 Jaffarie 先生进行了安全评估，这也是无可争议的。然而，大约五年后，即 2013 年 6 月 17 日，对他作出了不利的安全评估。工作组承认，最初通过必要安全评估的人，后来可能由于与个人行为和环境变化有关的原因而未能通过。 | 64. The Working Group observes that it is not contested that Mr. Jaffarie entered Australia legally on a spousal visa sponsored by his wife on 15 November 2008. It is also not disputed that a security assessment on Mr. Jaffarie was carried out at the time. However, it was some five years later, on 17 June 2013, that an adverse security assessment was issued against him. The Working Group accepts that it is possible that someone who has initially passed the requisite security assessment may later fail to pass it, for reasons linked to the behaviour of the individual and to changes in circumstances. |
65. 然而，在本案中，2013 年 6 月 17 日对 Jaffarie 先生的不利安全评估的结果是，他的签证于 2013 年 6 月 19 日被吊销，并在同一天作为非法非公民被拘留。工作组认为，双方对此没有争议，这意味着对 Jaffarie 先生的拘留是由于他的移民身份。首先，工作组有责任审查对 Jaffarie 先生的拘留是否属于第四类，换句话说，Jaffarie 先生是否受到长期行政拘留，且不可能得到行政或司法审查或补救。 | 65. In the present case, however, the result of the adverse security assessment in relation to Mr. Jaffarie on 17 June 2013 was the cancellation of his visa on 19 June 2013 and his detention as an illegal non-citizen on the same date. The Working Group observes that this is not contested by the parties, which means that the detention of Mr. Jaffarie has taken place due to his migratory status. First and foremost, it falls upon the Working Group to examine whether the detention of Mr. Jaffarie falls under category IV, in other words whether Mr. Jaffarie is being subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy. |
66. 工作组忆及，根据《联合国关于被剥夺自由者向法院提起诉讼的权利的补救措施和程序的基本原则和准则》，向法院质疑拘留合法性的权利是一项独立的人权，对于维护民主社会的合法性至关重要。5 这一权利事实上构成国际法的强制性规范，适用于一切形式的任意剥夺自由，6 并适用于所有剥夺自由的情况，不仅包括为刑事诉讼目的的拘留，还包括行政和其他法律领域的拘留情况，包括移民拘留。7 此外，无论拘留地点或立法中使用的法律术语如何，它都适用，基于任何理由的任何形式的剥夺自由都必须受到司法机构的有效监督和控制。8 | 66. The Working Group recalls that, according to the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right, which is essential to preserve legality in a democratic society.5 That right, which in fact constitutes a peremptory norm of international law, applies to all forms of arbitrary deprivation of liberty6 and applies to all situations of deprivation of liberty, including not only to detention for purposes of criminal proceedings but also to situations of detention under administrative and other fields of law, 5 A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2–3. 6 Ibid., para. 11. including migration detention.7 Moreover, it applies irrespective of the place of detention or the legal terminology used in the legislation, and any form of deprivation of liberty on any ground must be subject to effective oversight and control by the judiciary.8 |
67. 工作组强调，尽管政府辩称，案件管理和拘留审查委员会对 Jaffarie 先生的拘留进行了约 69 次审查，但该委员会不是《公约》第九条第 4 款所要求的司法机构。9 工作组注意到，政府方面一再未能解释委员会进行的审查如何满足《公约》第九条所载质疑拘留合法性的权利所包含的保障。10 因此，工作组认为，5 A/HRC/30/37, 第 2–3 段。6 同上，第 11 段。7 同上，附件，第 47 (a)段。8 同上，附件，第 47 (b)段。9 见第 20/2018 号意见，第 61 段、第 50/2018 号意见，第 77 段、第 74/2018 号意见，第 112段、第 1/2019 号意见，第 80 段、第 2/2019 号意见，第 95 段。10 同上。Jaffarie 先生向司法机构质疑其拘留合法性的权利，即《公约》第九条第 4 款所载的权利受到了侵犯。在得出这一结论时，工作组还回顾了人权事务委员会的许多结论，其中认定，在澳大利亚适用强制性移民拘留以及不可能对这种拘留提出质疑违反了《公约》第九条。11 | 67. The Working Group underscores that, although the Government argues that the detention of Mr. Jaffarie has been reviewed some 69 times by the Case Management and Detention Review Committee, the Committee is not a judicial body as required by article 9 (4) of the Covenant.9 The Working Group observes the repeated failure on behalf of the Government to explain how the reviews carried out by the Committee satisfy the guarantees encapsulated in the right to challenge the legality of detention enshrined in article 9 of the Covenant.10 The Working Group therefore finds that Mr. Jaffarie’s right to challenge the legality of his detention before a judicial body, the right enshrined in article 9 (4) of the Covenant, has been violated. In making this finding, the Working Group also recalls the numerous findings by the Human Rights Committee where the application of mandatory immigration detention in Australia and the impossibility of challenging such detention has been found to be in breach of article 9 of the Covenant.11 |
68. 此外，工作组注意到，对 Jaffarie 先生的拘留似乎是无限期的。他自 2013 年6 月 19 日以来一直被拘留，时间长达六年多，工作组注意到，政府在答复中没有说明这一拘留可能何时结束，或者实际上政府正在采取或打算采取什么步骤来结束这一拘留。 | 68. Moreover, the Working Group observes that the detention of Mr. Jaffarie appears to be indefinite. He has been in detention since 19 June 2013, a lengthy period of over six years, and the Working Group is mindful that the Government in its response has failed to give any indication as to when this detention might come to an end or indeed what steps it is taking or intends to take to bring it to an end. |
69. 在这方面，工作组讨论了该国政府提出的论点，即拘留时间长短不是一个决定性因素，根据国际法，只要拘留的理由是正当的，在移民背景下继续拘留是合法的。这是对适用的国际人权法的明显曲解。工作组必须再次强调，在移民程序过程中无限期拘留个人是没有道理的，是任意的，12 这就是为什么工作组要求，在移民程序过程中拘留的最长期限必须由立法规定，一旦法律规定的拘留期限到期，被拘留者必须自动获释。13 因此，工作组拒绝接受该国政府所说，拘留时间长短本身不是一个决定性因素，只要存在证明拘留合理的理由，拘留就可以合法地继续的论点。采纳政府的推理将意味着接受这样一个事实，即个人可能会陷入对其拘留的无休止的定期审查，而没有任何实际释放的希望。这种情况类似于无限期拘留，是无法补救的，即使是对拘留进行持续的最有意义的审查也无法补救。14 正如经修订的关于剥夺移民自由的第 5 号审议意见第 27 段所述： | 69. In that connection, the Working Group addresses the argument presented by the Government that the length of detention is not a determining factor and that the continuing detention in the context of migration is lawful under international law as long as the grounds for detention are justifiable. This is a plain misinterpretation of the applicable international human rights law. The Working Group must once again underscore that the indefinite detention of individuals in the course of migration proceedings cannot be justified and is arbitrary,12 which is why the Working Group has required that a maximum period for the detention in the course of migration proceedings must be set by legislation and that, once the period for detention set by law has expired, the detained person must be automatically released. 13 The Working Group therefore rejects the Government’s submission that the length of detention in itself is not a determining factor and that, as long as reasons justifying detention are present, the detention may legally continue. Following the reasoning of the Government would entail accepting that individuals could be caught up in an endless cycle of periodic reviews of their detention without any prospect of actual release. This is a situation akin to indefinite detention that cannot be remedied, not even by the most meaningful review of detention on an ongoing basis.14 As stated in paragraph 27 of its revised deliberation No. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants: |
在有些情况下，识别身份不正常的人或将他们驱逐出境的障碍不是他们造成的――包括原籍国领事代表不合作、不驱回原则或没有交通工具―― | There may be instances when the obstacle for identifying or removal of persons in an irregular situation from the territory is not attributable to them – including non-cooperation of the consular representation of the country of origin, the principle of non-refoulement or the unavailability of means of transportation – thus rendering |
70. 因此，事实上的无限期拘留 Jaffarie 先生违反了澳大利亚根据国际法，特别 | 7 |
由于高等法院在“Al-Kateb 诉 Godwin”案中的裁决，他的处境似乎不同于可以在国内法院和法庭有效质疑拘留合法性的澳大利亚公民。根据该裁决，虽然澳大利亚公民可以质疑行政拘留，但非公民不能。该国政府否认这些指称，辩称在所 | 10 Ibid. |
11 C.诉澳大利亚案、Baban 等人诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001)、Shafiq 诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004)、Shams 等人诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/90/D/1255、1256、1259、1260、1266、1268、1270、1288/2004)、Bakhtiyari 诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002)、D和 E 及其两名子女诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002)、Nasir 诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/116/D/2229/2012)、F.J.等人诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013)。 | 11 C. v. Australia; Baban et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001), Shafiq v. Australia (CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004); Shams et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/90/D/1255, 1256, 1259, 1260, 1266, 1268, 1270 and 1288/2004); Bakhtiyari v. Australia (CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002); D and E and their two children v. Australia (CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002); Nasir v. Australia (CCPR/C/116/D/2229/2012); and F.J. et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013). |
12 关于剥夺移民自由问题的第 5 号订正审议意见(A/HRC/39/45, 附件)，第 18 段及第 42/2017 号意见、第 28/2017 号意见、第 7/2019 号意见。另见 A/HRC/13/30，第 63 段。 | 12 Revised deliberation No. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants (A/HRC/39/45, annex), para. 18, and opinions No. 42/2017, No. 28/2017 and No. 7/2019. See also A/HRC/13/30, para. 63. |
13 第 5 号订正审议意见，第 17 段。又见 A/HRC/13/30, 第 61 段和第 7/2019 号意见。 | 13 Revised deliberation No. 5, para. 17. See also A/HRC/13/30, para. 61, and opinion No. 7/2019. |
14 见第 1/2019 和第 7/2019 号意见。 | 14 See opinions No. 1/2019 and No. 7/2019. |
14 见第 1/2019 和第 7/2019 号意见。述案件中，高等法院认为，《移民法》中要求拘留非公民直至其被驱逐、递解出境或获得签证的条款是有效的，即使驱逐在可预见的未来不太可行。 | 71. Furthermore, the Working Group notes the argument presented by the source that Mr. Jaffarie, as a non-citizen, appears to be in a different situation from Australian citizens in relation to his ability to effectively challenge the legality of his detention before the domestic courts and tribunals as a result of the decision of the High Court in Al-Kateb v. Godwin. According to that decision, while Australian citizens can challenge administrative detention, non-citizens cannot. The Government denies those allegations, arguing that, in the cited case, the High Court held that provisions of the Migration Act requiring the detention of non-citizens until they are removed, deported or granted a visa, even if removal were not reasonably practicable in the foreseeable future, were valid. |
72. 工作组不信服政府就高等法院的裁决提供的解释，并指出，这与政府多次向工作组提出的解释完全相同，工作组多次予以拒绝。15 这一解释只是证实了高等法院确认了拘留非公民的合法性，直到他们被驱逐、递解出境或获得签证，即使在可预见的将来驱逐不是合理可行的。 | 72. The Working Group is not convinced by the explanation provided by the Government in relation to the High Court’s decision and notes that it is exactly the same explanation that the Government has repeatedly presented to the Working Group and that the Working Group has rejected on numerous occasions.15 The explanation only confirms that the High Court affirmed the legality of detaining non-citizens until they are removed, deported or granted a visa, even if removal is not reasonably practicable in the foreseeable future. |
73. 然而，工作组一再指出，鉴于高等法院的裁决，政府未能解释非公民如何能够有效地质疑对他们的继续拘留，而这是政府为了遵守《公约》第九条和第二十六条必须做的。为此，工作组再次特别回顾了人权事务委员会的判例，该判例审查了高等法院对 Al-Kateb 诉 Godwin 案的判决的影响，并得出结论认为，该判决的影响是，没有有效的补救办法来质疑持续行政拘留的合法性。16 | 73. However, the Working Group has repeatedly noted that the Government fails to explain how non-citizens can effectively challenge their continued detention given the decision of the High Court, which is what the Government must do in order to comply with articles 9 and 26 of the Covenant. To this end, the Working Group once again specifically recalls the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, which has examined the implications of the High Court’s judgment in Al-Kateb v. Godwin and has concluded that the effect of that judgment is such that there is no effective remedy to challenge the legality of continued administrative detention.16 |
74. 工作组过去同意人权事务委员会对这一问题的意见，17 在本案中继续是这样。工作组强调，这种情况是歧视性的，违反了《公约》第二十六条。因此，委员会得出结论认为，对 Jaffarie 先生的拘留是任意的，属于第五类 | 74. The Working Group has concurred with the views of the Human Rights Committee on this matter in the past17 and continues to do so in the present case. The Working Group underscores that this situation is discriminatory and contrary to article 26 of the Covenant. It therefore concludes that the detention of Mr. Jaffarie is arbitrary, falling under category V. |
1958 年《移民法》 | Migration Act 1958 |
75. 工作组认为，本案是工作组自 2017 年以来收到的若干案件中的最新一起，所有案件都涉及同一问题，即根据 1958 年《移民法》在澳大利亚实施的强制性移民拘留。18 根据该法，非法的非公民必须被拘留和关押在移民拘留所，直到他们被从澳大利亚驱逐或获得签证。此外，该法第 196 条第(3)款规定，“为避 | 75. The Working Group observes that the present case is the latest in a number of cases that have come before the Working Group since 2017, all on the same issue, namely the mandatory immigration detention in Australia in application of the Migration Act 1958.18 |
他们被从澳大利亚驱逐或获得签证。此外，该法第 196 条第(3)款规定，“为避免疑问，第(1)款禁止释放非法的非公民，即使是由法院释放(第(1)款(a)项、(aa)项或(b)项所指的情况除外)，除非该非公民获得签证”。因此，只要有某种与发放签证或驱逐有关的程序(即使驱逐在可预见的将来不合理可行)，澳大利亚法律允许拘留非法的非公民。76. 工作组重申，寻求庇护不是犯罪行为。相反，寻求庇护是《世界人权宣言》第十四条和 1951 年《关于难民地位的公约》及其 1967 年议定书所载的一项普遍人权。19 工作组指出，这些文书构成澳大利亚承担的国际法律义务，并强调1951 年《公约》及其 1967 年《议定书》对澳大利亚无疑具有法律约束力。15 见第 21/2018 号意见，第 79 段、第 50/2018 号意见，第 81 段、第 74/2018 号意见，第 117段、第/2019 号意见第 88 段、第 2/2019 段第 98 段。 | Under the Act, unlawful non-citizens must be detained and kept in immigration detention until they are removed from Australia or granted a visa. In addition, section 196 (3) of the Act provides that “to avoid doubt, subsection (1) prevents the release, even by a court, of an unlawful non-citizen from detention (otherwise than as referred to in paragraph (1) (a), (aa) 15 See opinions No. 21/2018, para. 79, No. 50/2018, para. 81, No. 74/2018, para. 117, No. 1/2019, para. 88, and 2/2019, para. 98. |
16 C.诉澳大利亚案、Baban 等人诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001)、Shafiq 诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004)、Shams 等人诉澳大利亚案 (CCPR/C/90/D/1255、1256、1259、1260、1266、1268、1270、1288/2004)、Bakhtiyari 诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002)、D和 E 及其两名子女诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002)、Nasir 诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/116/D/2229/2012)、F.J.等人诉澳大利亚案(CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013)、F.J.等人诉澳大利亚案，第 9.3 段。 | 16 See C. v. Australia; Baban et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001); Shafiq v. Australia (CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004); Shams et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/90/D/1255, 1256, 1259, 1260, 1266, 1268, 1270 and 1288/2004); Bakhtiyari v. Australia (CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002); D and E and their two children v. Australia (CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002); Nasir v. Australia (CCPR/C/116/D/2229/2012); and F.J. et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013) and F.J. et al. v. Australia, para. 9.3. |
17 见第 28/2017 号、第 42/2017 号、第 71/2017 号、第 20/2018 号、第 21/2018 号、第 50/2018号、第 74/2018 号和第 2/2019 意见。 | 17 See opinions No. 28/2017, No. 42/2017, No. 71/2017, No. 20/2018, No. 21/2018, No. 50/2018, No. 74/2018, No. 1/2019 and No. 2/2019. |
18 同上。 | 18 Ibid. |
77. 工作组必须再次强调，在移民背景下剥夺自由必须是最后手段，必须寻求拘留的替代办法，以满足相称性要求。20 此外，正如人权事务委员会在关于人身自由和安全的第 35 号一般性意见(2014 年)第 18 段中指出的那样：非法进入缔约国领土的寻求庇护者可能会被拘留一段短暂的初始时间，以便记录他们的入境，记录他们的诉求，并在有疑问时确定他们的身份。在他们的诉求得到解决的情况下，如果没有具体针对个人的具体理由，如潜逃的个别可能性、危害他人罪的危险或危害国家安全行为的风险，进一步拘留他们将是任意的。 | 77. The Working Group must once again underscore that deprivation of liberty in the immigration context must be a measure of last resort and that alternatives to detention must be sought in order to meet the requirement of proportionality.20 Moreover, as the Human Rights Committee has argued in paragraph 18 of its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person: Asylum seekers who unlawfully enter a State party’s territory may be detained for a brief initial period in order to document their entry, record their claims and determine their identity if it is in doubt. To detain them further while their claims are being resolved would be arbitrary in the absence of particular reasons specific to the individual, such as an individualized likelihood of absconding, a danger of crimes against others or a risk of acts against national security. |
78. 该《移民法》的规定似乎违背了国际法的这些要求，因为其第 189 (1)和 189 (3)条规定事实上强制拘留所有非法的非公民，除非他们被驱逐出境或获得签证。此外，工作组认为，该法没有反映国际法承认的移民背景下的拘留例外原则，它也没有规定拘留的替代办法，以满足相称性的要求。21 | 78. The provisions of the Migration Act appear to be contrary to these requirements of international law since its sections 189 (1) and 189 (3) provide for the de facto mandatory detention of all unlawful non-citizens unless they are removed from the country or granted a visa. Furthermore, the Working Group observes that the Act does not reflect the principle of exceptionality of detention in the context of migration as recognized in international law; nor does it provide for alternatives to detention to meet the requirement of proportionality.21 |
79. 工作组注意到，来自澳大利亚提请其注意的有关《移民法》执行情况的案件越来越多。工作组感到关切的是，在所有这些案件中，政府辩称拘留是合法的，因为符合该法的规定。工作组指出，这种论点在国际法中永远不能被视为合法。一个国家遵循其国内立法这一事实本身，并不意味着该立法符合该国根据国际法承担的义务。换句话说，任何国家都不能以其国内法律和条例为借口，合法地逃避国际法规定的义务。 | 79. The Working Group notes the rising number of cases emanating from Australia concerning the implementation of the Migration Act that are being brought to its attention. The Working Group is concerned that in all these cases the Government has argued that the detention is lawful because it follows the stipulations of the Act. The Working Group outlines that such an argument can never be accepted as legitimate in international law. The fact that a State is following its own domestic legislation does not in itself mean that the legislation conforms with the obligations that the State has undertaken under international law. In other words, no State can legitimately avoid its obligations arising from international law by hiding behind its domestic laws and regulations. |
80. 工作组强调，政府有责任使其国家立法，包括《移民法》，符合国际法规定的义务。自 2017 年以来，许多国际人权机构，包括人权事务委员会、22 经济、社会、文化权利委员会、23 消除对妇女一切形式歧视委员会、24 消除一切形式种族歧视委员会、25 移民人权问题特别报告员26 和工作组27，一直反复提醒该国政府履行这些义务。工作组感到关切的是，这些独立的国际人权机制的一致声音受到忽视，并呼吁该国政府根据国际法规定的义务，毫不拖延地紧急审查其立法。 | 80. The Working Group stresses that it is the duty of the Government to bring its national legislation, including the Migration Act, into line with its obligations under international law. Since 2017, the Government has been consistently and repeatedly reminded of these obligations by numerous international human rights bodies, including the Human Rights Committee,22 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,23 the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 24 the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 25 the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants 26 and the Working Group. 27 The Working Group is concerned that the unison voice of these independent, international human rights 19 See opinions No. 28/2017, No. 42/2017 and No. 50/2018. See also revised deliberation No. 5, para. 9. 20 A/HRC/10/21, para. 67. See also revised deliberation No. 5, paras. 12 and 16. 21 Ibid. 22 CCPR/C/AUS/CO/6, paras. 33–38. 23 E/C.12/AUS/CO/5, paras. 17–18. 24 CEDAW/C/AUS/CO/8, para. 53. 25 CERD/C/AUS/CO/18-20, paras. 29–33. 26 A/HRC/35/25/Add.3. 27 See opinions No. 50/2018, paras. 86–89, No. 74/2018, paras. 99–103, No. 1/2019, paras. 92–97 and No. 2/2019, paras. 115–117. mechanisms would be disregarded and calls upon the Government to urgently review its legislation in the light of its obligations under international law without delay. |
81. 工作组欢迎澳大利亚政府于 2019 年 3 月 27 日邀请工作组于 2020 年访问澳大利亚。工作组期待有此机会与政府进行建设性接触，并提供协助，解决其对任意剥夺自由事件的严重关切。 | 81. The Working Group welcomes the invitation made on 27 March 2019 by the Government for the Working Group to conduct a visit to Australia in 2020. The Working Group looks forward to this opportunity to engage with the Government constructively and to offer its assistance in addressing its serious concerns relating to instances of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. |
处理意见 | Disposition |
82. 综上所述，工作组发表如下意见：剥夺 Sayed Akbar Jaffarie 的自由违反了《世界人权宣言》第二条、第三条、第七条、第八条和第九条和《公民及政治权利国际公约》第二条、第九条和第二十六条，为任意剥夺自由，属于第四和第五类。 | 82. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of Sayed Akbar Jaffarie, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of articles 2, 9 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories IV and V. |
83. 工作组请澳大利亚政府采取必要步骤，毫不拖延地纠正 Jaffarie 先生的情况，使之符合相关国际规范，包括《世界人权宣言》和《公民及政治权利国际公约》中规定的规范。 | 83. The Working Group requests the Government of Australia to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Jaffarie without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. |
84. 工作组认为，考虑到本案的所有情节，适当的补救办法是立即释放 Jaffarie先生，并根据国际法赋予他可强制执行的获得赔偿和其他补偿的权利。 | 84. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Jaffarie immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. |
85. 工作组促请该国政府确保对任意剥夺 Jaffarie 先生自由的相关情节进行全面和独立的调查，并对侵犯他权利的责任人采取适当措施。 | 85. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Jaffarie and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights. |
86. 工作组请该国政府使其法律，特别是 1958 年《移民法》，符合本意见中提出的建议和澳大利亚作出的国际法承诺。 | 86. The Working Group requests the Government to bring its laws, particularly the Migration Act 1958, into conformity with the recommendations made in the present opinion and with the international law commitments made by Australia. |
87. 根据其工作方法第 33 (a)段，工作组将本案移交给移民人权问题特别报告员，由其采取适当行动。 | 87. In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, for appropriate action. |
88. 工作组请该国政府利用现有的一切手段尽可能广泛地传播本意见。 | 88. The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible. |
后续程序 | Follow-up procedure |
89. 工作组根据工作方法第 20 段，请来文方和该国政府提供资料，说明就本意见所作建议采取的后续行动，包括：(a) Jaffarie 先生是否已被释放，如果是，何日获释；(b) 是否已向 Jaffarie 先生作出赔偿或其他补偿；(c) 是否已对侵犯 Jaffarie 先生权利的行为开展调查，如果是，调查结果如何；(d) 是否已按照本意见修订法律或改变做法，使澳大利亚的法律和实践符合其国际义务；(e) 是否已采取其他任何行动落实本意见。 | 89. In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including: (a) Whether Mr. Jaffarie has been released and, if so, on what date; (b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Jaffarie; (c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Jaffarie’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation; (d) Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to harmonize the laws and practices of Australia with its international obligations in line with the present opinion; (e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion. |
90. 请政府告知工作组在实施本意见所载建议的过程中可能遇到的任何困难，是否需要得到进一步技术援助。 | 90. The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and whether further technical assistance is required. |
91. 工作组请来文方和该国政府在本意见转达之日起六个月内提供上述资料。然而，如果有与案件相关的新情况引起工作组的注意，工作组保留自行采取本意见后续行动的权利。工作组可通过此种行动，让人权理事会了解工作组建议的落实进展情况，以及任何未采取行动的情况。 | 91. The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide theabove-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action. |
(C) 230420 240420 | GE.20-05807(E) |
人权理事会第四十四届会议 | Forty-fourth session |
2020 年 6 月 15 日至 7 月 3 日 | 15 June–3 July 2020 |
议程项目 3 | Agenda item 3 |
促进和保护所有人权――公民权利、政治权利、经济、社会及文化权利，包括发展权 | Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development |
对乌兹别克斯坦的访问 | Visit to Uzbekistan |
法官和律师独立性问题特别报告员的报告* ** | Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers* |
法官和律师独立性问题特别报告员的报告* ** | ** |
法官和律师独立性问题特别报告员于 2019 年 9 月 19 日至 25 日对乌兹别克斯坦进行了正式访问。这次访问的目的是评估米尔济约耶夫总统领导下正在进行的司法系统改革。 | The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers undertook an official visit to Uzbekistan from 19 to 25 September 2019. The purpose of the visit was to assess the ongoing reform of the justice system initiated under the leadership of President Mirziyoyev. |
特别报告员欢迎乌兹别克斯坦迄今在加强司法独立和法律职业自由方面取得的进展。最高司法委员会的建立、法院系统的改组、司法职位候选人的遴选和任命新程序，以及各种改善司法培训和任期保障措施的颁布，可被视为建立真正独立和公正的司法系统的积极步骤。然而，还需要做更多的工作，以确保司法机构真正独立于国家其他部门，确保法官、检察官和律师能够在没有任何不当干预或压力的情况下自由开展其专业活动。 | The Special Rapporteur welcomes the progress made thus far by Uzbekistan in strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the free exercise of the legal profession. The establishment of the Supreme Judicial Council, the reorganization of the court system, the new procedures for the selection and appointment of candidates to judicial offices, and the enactment of various measures to improve judicial training and security of tenure could be regarded as positive steps towards the establishment of a truly independent and impartial justice system. Nevertheless, much more needs to be done to ensure that the judiciary is truly independent from other branches of the State, and that judges, prosecutors and lawyers are free to carry out their professional activities without any undue interference or pressure. |
一些干预仍在损害司法部门相对于政府其他部门的独立性(体制独立)以及法官个人公正和自主裁决案件的独立性(个人独立)。检察官保持着刑事诉讼中的突出地位，检察长的任免程序没有提供足够的保障以防止来自立法和行政权力部门的不当政治影响，这引起对整个检察部门体制独立性的极大关切。律师的短缺严重影响诉诸司法的机会，特别是在塔什干以外地区，而律师在接触当事人方面仍会遇到一些障碍，特别是在审前拘留期间。 | A number of interferences continue to undermine both the independence of the judiciary from other branches of Government (institutional independence) and the independence of individual judges to adjudicate the cases before them impartially and autonomously (personal independence). Prosecutors retain a prominent role in criminal proceedings, and the procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor-General do not provide sufficient guarantees to prevent undue political influence from the legislative and executive branches of power, raising considerable concerns as to the institutional independence of the whole prosecution service. The shortage of lawyers severely affects access to justice, especially outside Tashkent, and lawyers continue to |
* 本报告概要以所有正式语文分发。报告正文附于概要之后，仅以提交语文和俄文分发。 | * The summary of the report is being circulated in all official languages. The report itself, which is annexed to the summary, is being circulated in the language of submission and in Russian only. |
** 因提交方无法控制的情况，经协议，本报告迟于标准发布日期发布。 | ** Agreement was reached to publish the present report after the standard publication date owing to circumstances beyond the submitters’ control. |
联 合 国 A/HRC/44/47/Add.1 | United Nations A/HRC/44/47/Add.1 |
大 会 Distr.: General | General Assembly Distr.: General |
20 April 2020 | 20 April 2020 |
特别报告员在报告的最后提出了一些建议，以期进一步加强法官和检察官的独立性以及法律职业的自由运作。 | The Special Rapporteur concludes the report by offering a number of recommendations aimed at further strengthening the independence of judges and prosecutors and the free exercise of the legal profession. |
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of | Annex |
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and lawyers on his visit to UzbekistanI. Introduction | I. Introduction |
II. Legal and institutional framework | II. Legal and institutional framework |
A. International obligations | A. International obligations |
B. The justice system | B. The justice system |
III. Positive developments | III. Positive developments |
(d) New procedures for the selection and appointment of candidates to judicialoffices; | (d) New procedures for the selection and appointment of candidates to judicial offices; |
(e) Measures to strengthen the security of tenure for judges; | (e) Measures to strengthen the security of tenure for judges; |
3 Law No. 257-II of 29 August 2001.4 Law No. ZRU-419 of 3 January 2017. | 4 Law No. ZRU-419 of 3 January 2017. |
A. Judges | A. Judges |
1. Threats to judicial independence | 1. Threats to judicial independence |
23. According to the Law on Courts, the independence of judges is ensured by:(a) Statutory procedures for their election, appointment and termination of office;(b) Their immunity;(c) Strict procedures for the administration of justice;(d) Secrecy of the judges’ conference before the delivery of a judgment andrestraint of disclosure of the respective confidential information;(e) Liability for contempt of court or interfering with judicial proceedings, orviolation of judicial immunity;(f) An adequate level of material and social security provided to judges by theState in accordance with their high social status (art. 67). | 23. According to the Law on Courts, the independence of judges is ensured by: (a) Statutory procedures for their election, appointment and termination of office; (b) Their immunity; (c) Strict procedures for the administration of justice; (d) Secrecy of the judges’ conference before the delivery of a judgment and restraint of disclosure of the respective confidential information; (e) Liability for contempt of court or interfering with judicial proceedings, or violation of judicial immunity; (f) An adequate level of material and social security provided to judges by the State in accordance with their high social status (art. 67). |
2. Supreme Judicial Council | 2. Supreme Judicial Council |
case should they be selected, or appointed, by the executive branch.937. As to the appointment of the Chair of the Supreme Judicial Council, the SpecialRapporteur considers that the Chair should be an impartial person who does not have anypolitical affiliation, and should be elected by the Council itself from among its judge-5 Law No. ZRU-427 of 6 April 2017, as amended by Law No. ZRU-566 of 10 September 2019.6 A/HRC/38/38, para. 42.7 See also Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions andHuman Rights, “Opinion on the Law on the High Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan”,Opinion-Nr.: JUD-UZB/327/2018, 1 October 2018, paras. 22–29; and Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development, Anti-Corruption Reforms in Uzbekistan: 4th Round of Monitoring ofthe Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan, 2019, pp. 104–106.8 A/HRC/38/38, paras. 72–73.9Ibid., paras. 76–77 and 108. | 39. The Council is now responsible for the selection and appointment of the majority of national judges (judges of military courts, regional courts and Tashkent city courts, Chairs 6 A/HRC/38/38, para. 42. 7 See also Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, “Opinion on the Law on the High Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan”, Opinion-Nr.: JUD-UZB/327/2018, 1 October 2018, paras. 22–29; and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Anti-Corruption Reforms in Uzbekistan: 4th Round of Monitoring of the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan, 2019, pp. 104–106. 8 A/HRC/38/38, paras. 72–73. 9 Ibid., paras. 76–77 and 108. 10 Ibid., para. 112. and judges of interdistrict, district and city courts). Until recently, the Council exercised this competence in consultation with the President (article 63, paragraph 5, of the Law on Courts), but such consultative process has now been eliminated.11 |
4. Security of tenure | 4. Security of tenure |
10 Ibid., para. 112.11 See Law No. ZRU-566 of 10 September 2019. | 11 See Law No. ZRU-566 of 10 September 2019. |
12 A/HRC/38/38, para. 49. | 12 A/HRC/38/38, para. 49. |
13 Ibid., para. 54; A/HRC/11/41, para. 30. | 13 Ibid., para. 54; A/HRC/11/41, para. 30. |
46. Law No. 428 of 12 April 2017 introduced amendments to article 63-1 of the Law onCourts, which regulates security of tenure. According to this new provision, judges are nowappointed for an initial 5-year term, followed by a 10-year term, and subsequently by alifetime appointment. These changes represent a positive step in the right direction.However, the system of two temporary appointments before achieving a lifelongappointment continues to expose judges to the risks of undue pressure and interferencesduring the first 15 years in office. This is true, in particular, for judges dealing withpolitically sensitive cases, who may feel pressured to decide in favour of the Stateauthorities in order to improve their chances of being reappointed.47. To date, changes in the regulation on the duration of tenure have not had a positiveimpact on the security of tenure of Uzbek judges. As of October 2018, only 38 judges(about 3 per cent of all judges) had obtained a permanent appointment. Most of thesejudges sit in the Supreme Court. A total of 164 judges (about 12 per cent) had beenreappointed for a 10-year term, while the remaining judges were on an initial 5-year | 47. To date, changes in the regulation on the duration of tenure have not had a positive impact on the security of tenure of Uzbek judges. As of October 2018, only 38 judges (about 3 per cent of all judges) had obtained a permanent appointment. Most of these judges sit in the Supreme Court. A total of 164 judges (about 12 per cent) had been reappointed for a 10-year term, while the remaining judges were on an initial 5-year appointment. |
5. Role of Chairs | 5. Role of Chairs |
judges in their court, including the authority to provide salary increases up to 100 per cent14 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and HumanRights, “Opinion on the Law on the High Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan”, Opinion-Nr.: JUD-UZB/327/2018, 1 October 2018, paras. 48–52.to judges and staff who perform their professional duties in an efficient and diligent way. | 55. International standards provide that a hierarchical organization of the judiciary, intended as the subordination of the judges to the court presidents or to higher instances in 14 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, “Opinion on the Law on the High Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan”, Opinion-Nr.: JUD-UZB/327/2018, 1 October 2018, paras. 48–52. their judicial decision-making activity, amounts to a breach of the principle of judicial independence.15 |
to judges and staff who perform their professional duties in an efficient and diligent way.They also have the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges (see para. 58). | 6. Disciplinary proceedings |
Judges in Taipei, Taiwan Province of China, on 17 November 1999, and updated in Santiago on 14November 2017, art. 3-1. | 15 Universal Charter of the Judge, approved by the Central Council of the International Association of Judges in Taipei, Taiwan Province of China, on 17 November 1999, and updated in Santiago on 14 November 2017, art. 3-1. |
16 A/HRC/38/38, paras. 60 ff. | 16 A/HRC/38/38, paras. 60 ff. |
17 Adopted by Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. ZRU-368 of 22 April 2014. | 17 Adopted by Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. ZRU-368 of 22 April 2014. |
62. In Uzbekistan, women continue to be a small minority on the bench. According torecent estimates, out of a total of 1,038 judges, only 129 (12.4 per cent) were women.19The gender gap is particularly evident in criminal and administrative courts, where womenrepresent approximately 8 per cent of the total number of judges (25 out of 319 and 18 outof 203, respectively).20 No data are available about the percentage of women judges sitting | 62. In Uzbekistan, women continue to be a small minority on the bench. According to recent estimates, out of a total of 1,038 judges, only 129 (12.4 per cent) were women.19 The gender gap is particularly evident in criminal and administrative courts, where women represent approximately 8 per cent of the total number of judges (25 out of 319 and 18 out of 203, respectively).20 No data are available about the percentage of women judges sitting in the top-ranking position. |
B. Prosecutors | B. Prosecutors |
19 There seems to be a negative trend in relation to women’s representation in the judiciary: in 2015, theCommittee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women had already expressedconcerns at the decline in the number of women judges, who then represented 13 per cent of the totalworkforce (CEDAW/C/UZB/CO/5, para. 21). | 19 There seems to be a negative trend in relation to women’s representation in the judiciary: in 2015, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women had already expressed concerns at the decline in the number of women judges, who then represented 13 per cent of the total workforce (CEDAW/C/UZB/CO/5, para. 21). |
20 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Anti-Corruption Reforms in Uzbekistan,p. 92. | 20 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Anti-Corruption Reforms in Uzbekistan, p. 92. |
2. Supervisory powers | 2. Supervisory powers |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.