Skip to main content

Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

Click here to return to the Submission Index

Submission to National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention from

Barbara Rogalla - former Woomera

Nurse

With thanks

for on-line pro bono assistance to: Patrick T. Byrt, Human Rights Barrister,

South Australia


ABREVIATIONS

CAT - Convention

against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

1987

CROC - Convention

on the Rights of the Child

IDC - Immigration

Detention Centre

NGO - Non-government

Organization

OMCT - The World

Organization against Torture

Rules - UN Rules

for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their liberty

TD -Tampere Declaration


Introduction

"We

reaffirm our commitment to continue our struggle to eliminate all forms

of violence and torture against children and to create a world that protects

and fulfils the rights of all children." [1]

As the result of

my onsite observations during my employment at the Woomera IDC for three

months as a Registered Nurse during the year 2000, I wrote to the Human

Rights Commissioner on 23rd September 2000 to inform him of the facts

evidencing "a disturbing gap between our international obligations

and what is actually happening at Woomera."

I have since by media

made a public condemnation of conditions inside IDCs.

Much information

in this submission is based on my previous work [2],

[3], [4].

Following my letter

to HREOC, riots, hunger strikes and use of the water canon have become

more frequent at IDCs. I recently visited Woomera, only to find that the

camp now looks even more formidable, frightening and offensive.

The outer perimeter

now extends to the Roxby Downs road, with an additional two rows of razor

wire fences between which lies a haunting no-man's-land. The layout of

staged high razor wire fences with open spaces between more than ever

resembles concentration camp horror, straight out of Nazi Germany.

The central argument

of my submission is that IDC detention of children constitutes acts of

torture outlawed by the Convention against Torture.

The Convention on

the Rights of the Child (CROC) [5] also prohibits Torture.

CROC [6] guarantees protection and rehabilitation of

child victims who have been exposed to torture.

Therefore, it is

also my submission that an investigation by HREOC of IDC detention of

children is torture outlawed by CAT and prohibited by CROC, is within

the terms of reference by which your HREOC inquiry is established.

I submit that the

IDC detention of children therefore violates both the Convention against

Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for the following

reasons:

  • The routine treatment

    of children inside IDCs, without the provision of efficacious remedial

    measures, constitutes an unlawful neglect.

  • The nature and

    extent of the implementation of mandatory detention of children in IDCs

    makes it impossible to provide the required efficacious special remedial

    measures on site so as to alleviate all unlawful neglect.

  • The unlawful neglect

    directly arises in the implementation of mandatory detention which is

    the required operational policy of IDCs, and is therefore inherently

    systemic to the continuing operation policy of IDCs.

  • Applicable State

    child protection law is not adequate as domestic Australian law to prevent

    systemic unlawful neglect inside Federal IDCs.

  • The direct implementation

    of the Australian government policy of mandatory detention through IDCs

    constitutes the unlawful neglect of children detained in IDCs and the

    operation of IDCs does nothing to reverse it.

  • A systemic application

    of a government policy of mandatory detention, which constitutes unlawful

    neglect of detained children, constitutes gross and inescapable mental

    and physical suffering that is a violation under CAT and is prohibited

    by CROC within the terms of all outlawed torture.

  • The Australian

    government is thereby culpable of torture of children.

Unlawful child neglect

materially occurs in IDCs both as a logically necessary, and substantially

effective, consequence of any significant implementation of the policy

of mandatory detention in the operation of IDCs by a government.

This submission provides

examples of the significant extent to which the material conditions of

daily life imposed in IDCs under mandatory detention compromise the mental,

social, and developmental profiles of detained children, and how this

harm arises directly from a mandatory detention policy.

These conditions

are examined in the light of Australia's international obligations, particularly

CROC and CAT.

OMCT, the World Organization

against Torture, works closely with the UN and with NGOs across the globe

in an effort to identify, prevent and address all forms of violence against

children, including torture and neglect, and neglect which extends to

torture. The Tampere Declaration (TD) enhances the role of OMCT by proposing

improved protection for children wherever they suffer structural or institutional

violence. TD holds governments responsible for all forms of child neglect,

because governments are mandated to protect children. Therefore, the role

of OMCT and the recommendations and strategies of TD are relevant to the

HREOC inquiry.

OMCT condemns the

treatment of asylum seekers and warns that conditions inside IDCs amount

to ill treatment. OMCT therefore requests that Australia guarantees the

"respect of human rights and the fundamental freedoms throughout

the country." [7]

From this principle,

and from my own observations of the damaging effects of detention on children,

follows the tenet that children should be released from detention, together

with both parents, and that mandatory detention of unaccompanied minors

is indefensible.

Best Interests

"In

all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child

shall be a primary consideration." [8]

This commitment is

re-enforced by the non-discrimination clause [9] in CROC

which operates irrespective of the parent's or the child's legal status.

Non-discrimination means that all rights set out in CROC apply, even if

the child arrived in Australia by boat and without valid travel documents.

The right of the

child to an identity, including a name [10], is at odds

with the practice of calling individuals by a number, as is practice in

some IDCs.

CROC advocates that

staff who work in institutions where children are kept, are selected on

the basis of suitable personal attributes, as well as professional competency.

[11] These requirements are more clearly spelt out in

Rules. Rules stipulate the personal qualities of "integrity, humanity,

ability and professional capacity". [12] Australia,

through its private contractor ACM, [13] falls short

of delivering these standards.

These are the findings

of a parliamentary investigation.

"…in

the course of 2000 a small proportion of detention officer staff were

treating detainees including children as if they were criminals, intimidation

and verbal abuse occurred and detainees were not sufficiently aware

of their right to complain to the Ombudsman." [14]

At the time the Flood

report was commissioned by Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock, an Ombudsman

investigation "…following complaints and a number of reported

incidents including escapes and allegations of assaults on detainees",

was already nearing completion. [15] Findings of the

Flood and Ombudsman reports were released within days of each other.

Not surprisingly,

the Ombudsman report also revealed disturbing evidence.

"…there

were a worrying number of reports of indecent assault and threats toward

unattached women and children who represent the groups at highest risk.

In my view, the accommodation and monitoring/care arrangements at IDCs

did not come up to what I would regard as a minimum acceptable standard

to ensure that those at greatest risk are not exposed to harm."

[16]

Flood recommended

that the training of detention staff be upgraded, because some staff lacked

awareness of company policy and also needed "guidance to deal with

issues of racism, sexism and religious intolerance". [17]

HREOC needs to investigate

if this recommendation has been implemented. As the result of improved

staff training, there should now be evidence of better working relationships

between ACM detention staff and detainees, and greater protection for

detained women and children. Periodic disturbances that are reported in

the media, the use of the water canon, batons and tear gas when children

are nearby, suggest that relationships have deteriorated, rather than

improved.

But acting in the

best interests of children is not restricted to appropriate personnel

selection. Mandatory detention of children can never be in their best

interests, and therefore contravenes the spirit of CROC. Their detention

is also an indictment of Australia.

"These children

arrive through no fault of their own. They arrive because adults bring

them here. Yet they are held accountable for the problems created by

grown-ups. The indiscriminate detention of children, therefore, is a

reflection of how this nation treats those who are innocent. A legal

and political framework that scapegoats children and uses them as a

deterrent to stop others from arriving is offensive to Australians.

Setting children

free is the only logical step available. Yet it is not enough to free

only the children because, as we know from the work of developmental

researchers, to separate children from their parents becomes the blueprint

for generating even more harm. Therefore, the children and their parents

(not just the mother) need to be released together. Anything less goes

against the laws of development and comes at the expense of our previously

good reputation for kindness and compassion." [18]

As former Human Rights

Commissioner Chris Sidoti observed, "the basic problem is detention

itself". [19]

The UN CROC Committee

voiced its concerns [20] over the detention of children

under the Aliens Act in Sweden, even though children cannot be detained

in Sweden for more than six days. In Australia, the Ombudsman identified

one nineteen-month old child who has been detained since birth, and another

child who has spent four years in detention. [21] Children

who are born whilst their parents are in detention, are incarcerated from

the moment of birth.

The CROC Committee

also recommends that detained children have access to public legal counsel.

[22] This recommendation contrasts with the Australian

practice where detention is of indeterminate length with virtually no

scope for judicial intervention.

Failure of Nigeria

to consider the adoption of principles ensuring detention of juveniles

as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time, prompted the Committee

to ask for "… a radical review of the whole system of administration

of juvenile justice in Nigeria." [23] It would

be of interest to note how the CROC Committee views the Australian situation.

The last report by Australia to the CROC committee was presented in 1998,

and this report did not address the mandatory detention of children.

Administrative arrangements

of IDCs are a matter of concern. DIMIA selected ACM from seventeen applicants

for the tender. ACM, with its working culture that developed from prison

and police work, is unsuitable to operate IDCs, and to act in the best

interests in children. Were DIMIA to have intended its choice of an IDCs

manager to provide humane and efficacious processing, rather than prison

services, it ought to have contracted a company with a track record in

employing primarily social workers, teachers, and specialist counsellors

with trauma and torture experience.

Another cause for

concern is how ACM ever obtained the contract without first producing

a Child Protection Policy. In February 2001, the Flood inquiry documented

that there was no such policy implemented. [24] This

seems indefensible; given the company has been the sole operator of immigration

detention facilities in Australia since 1998.

The best interests

of children are linked with the fate of their parents, because both are

interdependent. As children grow up inside the unpredictable IDC environment,

their Human Rights become compromised. The at times brutal manner in which

parents and other adults are detained impact on the physical and emotional

environment in which children live. This may dull the children's' recognition

that other people have Human Rights, and could lead to detrimental social

consequences when the currently detained children become adults.

It would therefore

be in their best interests that detained children become formally educated

about their own Human Rights. This practice also fosters respect for the

rights of others. Copies of CROC should be made available to children

[25] and their parents, in languages spoken by detained

asylum seekers. Child friendly editions should include drawings and paraphrased

language to assist younger children to understand the Convention.

Distribution of CROC

inside IDCs should also include information about complaint mechanisms

that can be pursued by detained individuals who believe CROC has been

breached.

Survival and Development

"States

Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development

of the child." [26]

Commensurate with

such requirement is an appropriate standard of living that ensures "mental,

spiritual and social development." Growing up in an environment of

"happiness, love and understanding," [27]

together with the right to "rest and leisure, and to engage in recreational

activities" [28] are essential prerequisites for

growing up to become a well-adjusted adult.

But detention centres

depict a different reality.

"The structure

of wire fences, of orderly routine, and of medical treatment driven

by detention policy form the backdrop to the ever-present possibility

of danger. Children are aware that batons, riot shields, water canons

or gas that causes nosebleed can always be directed at them, even if

friendly medical personnel patch up injuries. An environment where tension,

riots and hunger strikes are routine means torture, because children

live in fear." [29]

A visitor to the

Villawood IDC reports.

"At the close

of visiting time, a three-year old from the security of his father's

arms reached out, imploring me take the both of them with me. His tear-filled

eyes followed me through the perimeter razor-wire fence until I was

out of sight.

He had spent over

half his young life in detention but he clearly recognised that where

I came from was much better than the misery of life behind cruel coils

of razor wire with an institutional regime which denies children the

right to freedom and development in a secure environment." [30]

The rights to freedom

of assembly [31] and freedom of expression, [32]

freedom of thought, conscience and religion [33] become

meaningless in a fluid and unpredictable detention environment that restricts

almost all forms of entertainment and educational opportunities, does

not offer access to the Internet, nor exposure to the performing arts.

The fences, the uniformed guards, and the illumination of the camp at

night, stifle spontaneous social interaction and privacy.

Future studies may

well identify inter-generational damage, as detention renders children

incapable of negotiating their own needs.

"I observed

a group of detainee children in the visitor area of the Villawood IDC

in Sydney fighting over one rusty, dilapidated and rickety swing. A

boy around 6-years of age was pleading for a turn - he became increasing

frantic as he whined for a turn, lest he miss the chance before the

short visiting period came to an end. Eventually he gave up - walking

away with head bowed and shoulders slumped in resignation. Not even

a tension-relieving tear!"

It was me who wept

for this sad boy." [34]

The ability to reach

out to others in a loving and caring way becomes compromised.

"… the

two siblings in the family had increasingly begun to fight with each

other, to the point where their only interaction was violent. It was

a dramatic illustration of what's happening to families in detention

centres." [35]

CROC recognises the

responsibility of both parents to bring up the child, [36]

and also the right of the child to be with both parents. [37]

"At least seven times" [38] [a child] went

to hospital, recovered but became ill again when he returned to detention.

For three months, his cycle of treatment and relapse continued as he oscillated

between clinical indicators of health and illness. Then the media arrested

the cycle. [39]

[The child] was released

from detention. But appropriate medical treatment came at a cost. The

family was split up. His parents initially remained in detention, but

the mother was later released. His father remains in detention at the

time of writing. [40]

The UN Committee

on the Rights of the Child links the placement of children inside institutions

to "… stunted development, emotional and behavioural disorders

(and) inadequate social skills." Institutions predispose children

to suffering neglect and abuse, and the Committee reports that "preventing

the placement of children in institutions was one of the most effective

measures to prevent violence against children." [41]

On this basis the Committee recommends that children be placed outside

of detention, in order to meet the child's needs

"…not

only for survival, but also for development, including psychological,

mental, spiritual, moral, psychological and social development, in a

manner compatible with human dignity and to prepare the child for an

individual life in a free society, in accordance with article 6 of the

Convention." [42]

Some of the children

currently detained inside IDCs will grow up to be Australian adults, without

personal memory of any other country. The detention experience is incompatible

with anything that fosters normal survival and development.

Mandatory detention

of children and the deliberate withholding of developmental opportunities

generates adverse consequences for the whole of Australian society. Current

government practice is creating a legacy of injustice that future generations

may have to grapple with, because the full damage caused by detention

may not become evident for many years.

Torture by neglect

"No

child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment." [43]

Children are damaged

as the result of their detention inside IDCs. The link between childhood

deprivation and pain and suffering later in life is well documented in

clinical literature. Relevant evidence is also available to the HREOC

inquiry in a separate submission. [44]

Where children have

been subjected to torture or neglect, measures should be taken toward

their recovery. [45] But there is nothing humane about

keeping previously traumatised children inside detention, so that it is

unlikely for healing to occur inside IDCs.

"Even an "innocent"

decision such as room allocation can have a detrimental effect and can

activate previous trauma. Routine awakening by guards during random

night patrols, including the use of flashlight beams and the repeating

of detainee names can lead to children developing fears about sleeping.

A young father told me his child resisted being put to bed and would

often collapse exhausted, only to wake screaming with nightmares."

…

"A 15-year-old

detained in a desert camp in Australia told me of his fear when he was

housed with men from the ethnic group which had persecuted him and his

family in his country of origin."

…

"Everybody

told me that Australia was a good country and people were kind. My father

sent me away to save my life. But they persecute me here in Australia.

They do not believe my story and shout at me. The guards say to me Australian

people do not want you. I am dying inside every day in DIMA detention

with no hope. I cannot go home to find my family and I cannot have freedom.

" [46]

Child protection

laws are in place in Australia, and there are memoranda of understanding

between child protection agencies and detention centres. But these laws

do not protect detained children from neglect or from cruel and inhumane

treatment that is caused by conditions of detention. Torture comes about

by the ongoing failure of the government to act and to protect the detained

children from harm and neglect.

OMCT addresses structural

violence against children by promoting community based, rather than medical

or legal mechanisms. But IDCs are harsh prison camps, not communities

that shape their own future. The remote location of some camps, and the

deliberate attempts to keep the press and visitors out, and the suppression

of information, make the IDCs an ideal environment for torture.

One example demonstrates

the government's reluctance to intervene, when child abuse is suspected.

In November 2000, the daily newspaper The Australian reported that child

abuse was "rampant" at the Woomera detention centre, [47]

that a child was raped eight months earlier, [48] and

that ACM management suppressed an investigation.

The response was

unique. A government official confirmed previous sexual abuse investigations,

but summarised these as instances of faulty "parenting skills".

[49] Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock blamed vested

interests of political opponents and claimed these allegations "were

being pushed by advocacy groups opposed to the mandatory detention of

asylum seekers with children". [50]

A subsequent parliamentary

inquiry confirmed a cover-up. [51] This finding highlights

concerns for the safety of detained children and also casts doubt over

the integrity of the information process between DIMIA and ACM, and between

the government and the Australian public.

The Tampere Declaration

recommends transparency as a strategy to combat child abuse and neglect.

Amnesty Australia documents its concerns over legislation that prohibits

the Human Rights Commissioner and the Ombudsman from initiating contact

with detained asylum seekers. [52]

TD also recommends

a national plan of action with effective monitoring bodies and national

co-operation with UN fact-finding missions. But Australia scoffs at the

UN. A UN delegation was prevented from inspecting IDCs in August 2000,

and permission for the pending UN visit in mid-May to the Woomera detention

centre was only given after reluctant stalling by the Prime Minister.

Whilst Australia

is a signatory to the Convention against Torture, there is no domestic

law that prohibits torture within Australia. The 1988 Torture Act and

its 2001 amendment only recognise torture if an Australian official commits

the offence outside of Australia. [53] But torture is

a crime against humanity, and offenders should be liable to prosecution,

regardless of where it occurs.

The Tampere Declaration

calls on governments to "ratify and fully implement all international

and regional human rights and humanitarian instruments relevant to violence

against children in all areas under their jurisdiction."

HREOC needs to address

this issue and ensure that the Australian Torture Act is not a blueprint

for impunity.

 

Establishing Torture

"Torture

presupposes the innocence of its victims. Such innocence becomes most

obvious where the victims are children." [54]

Within the context

of Human Rights, the definition of torture comes from article 1 of The

Convention against Torture.

"For the purposes

of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which

severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally

inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third

person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a

third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating

or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination

of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation

of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other

person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering

arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

[55]

CAT stipulates that

torture occurs only in the context of four conditions that accompany pain

and suffering. Where children in IDCs are concerned, all four conditions

for establishing Torture are met.

1. From Severe

Pain or Suffering to Torture.

Examples cited in

this submission should leave no doubt that pain and suffering of the children

is severe. But how do severe pain and suffering relate to torture?

Precedent in international

law suggests a two-tired consideration that propels inhuman and degrading

acts into the realm of torture.

The European Court

of Human Rights found a technique applied to a prisoner "of such

a serious and cruel nature that it can only be described as torture."

Accordingly, the severity of the act automatically identifies certain

acts as torture. [56]

Other court findings

locate inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment on a continuum with

torture. Somewhere on this continuum is the cut-off point for torture.

Where treatment and torture intersects, depends on the personal circumstances

of the victim, such as sex, age, state of health, and relationship to

the perpetrator. [57]

Consideration of

personal circumstances of the victim has implications for arguing torture

under Australia's mandatory immigration detention regime. Prior to their

incarceration in Australia, asylum seeker children may have already experienced

or witnessed trauma. Such experience is likely to make some children even

more vulnerable to conditions inside IDCs. Previous noxious experience

therefore means that torture threshold is reached much sooner than it

would otherwise.

2. Intent.

Child neglect by

itself does not constitute torture. Neglect is the foreseeable outcome

of detaining children. Intent comes about by the continued refusal of

the government to intervene.

Intent can also be

argued on the basis of discrimination. Discrimination is evident from

the conditions in which detained child asylum seekers are kept. No other

children in Australia are subjected to such conditions.

3. Instigation,

consent or acquiescence of a public official.

The privately owned

company ACM is contracted by DIMIA to perform day-to-day operation of

the IDCs. But overall responsibility rests with DIMIA, and this responsibility

cannot be delegated to a private contractor. [58] Therefore,

ACM employees are in the functional role of public official.

Contrary to the stereotype

image of torture, there is no torturer inside IDCs who regularly beats

screaming children. Nevertheless, the child neglect that occurs during

detention is just as real as if there were an individual torturer.

Owing to the recent

changes in international law canvassed in the statutes of the recently

established International Criminal Court, there is an international move

toward a more liberal definition of torture. Culpability in this forum

may have been extended to include not only those who played a key role

in the implementation of the policy of mandatory detention, but also to

all individuals who had a lesser role in mandatory detention.

4. Pain and suffering

arising from lawful sanctions.

Mandatory detention

has its legislative basis in the Australian Migration Act. [59]

But no form of legal detention justifies that children, or any other prisoner,

becomes damaged as the result of detention to the extent that children

are damaged inside IDCs.

Concerns arising

Trauma and Torture

(T&T)

The mandate to seek

out torture [60] and the power of CAT to investigate

institutions [61] are hampered inside IDCs. Immigration

Detention Standards stipulate that asylum seekers with a history of T&T

should not be detained, except that

  • There is no systematic

    way of identifying T&T survivors when they reach the detention camps;

  • T&T is not

    part of the initial medical assessment, which is usually conducted by

    nurses; and

  • Nurses are not

    usually qualified to identify T&T victims.

Effective primary

screening instruments should include an early intervention protocol to

identify T&T victims, whose release should be implemented without

delay.

From there, as recommended

by the Tampere Declaration, the reintegration of child victims should

commence according to established community standards, and in collaboration

with NGOs. But reintegration cannot occur whilst children are detained

under conditions of the current mandatory detention regime.

Identified T&T

victims at Woomera

The visiting Senior

ACM Psychologist identified two (2) T&T victims in April 2000. Based

on his assessment he recommended that they be transferred to another centre.

One of these individuals

was 12 years old at the time.

The other was a man

who had an identified psychiatric condition. A triage nurse at Glenside

Hospital in Adelaide informed me that his treating Glenside psychiatrist

recommended as early as February 2000 that Woomera was inappropriate.

Both individuals were still detained at the Woomera centre at the end

of July 2000.

Other concerns

In July 2000, a GP

requested an urgent referral for a twelve year old to a child psychiatrist.

This is another child, not the twelve year old identified as a T&T

victim by the psychologist. The girl showed clinical signs of stress after

she witnessed a traumatic incident at the Woomera detention centre. I

was unable to arrange for a consultation by video link, because my working

contract had expired. To my knowledge, the consultation with the child

psychiatrist never occurred.

A paediatrician from

the Port Augusta Hospital recommended that an infant be transferred from

Woomera, because the child needed medical attention that could not be

provided at Woomera. This request was also ignored. The boy later developed

life threatening respiratory distress and needed emergency transfer to

another medical facility. ACM management delayed the ambulance transfer

of the critically ill child by almost one hour.

I can supply details

to HREOC that would enable the Commissioner to access the clinical files

of all four individuals.

In a six-week window

during June and July 2000, there were several allegations of child and

adult sexual abuse at the Woomera IDC. These matters have already been

referred to the relevant authorities.

My remaining concern

is that when abuse allegations were raised, alleged victims were returned

to the compound where they lived, often in close proximity to the alleged

perpetrator, locked together into the same compound.

HREOC needs to ensure

that whenever sexual assault is alleged, the alleged victim is immediately

moved from the area where it is alleged to have occurred to a safe dormitory,

and not only after detention staff are convinced of the merit of the allegation.

Detention staff are not qualified to assess or substantiate allegations

of sexual abuse.

 


1.

The Tampere Declaration. Produced at the OMCT Conference "Children,

Torture and other Forms of Violence" Tampere, Finland, 27th Nov to

2nd Dec 2001

2.

B. Rogalla and T. Highfield. "The Systematic Incarceration of Children

in Immigration Detention Centers of Australia: A Modern Form of Torture"

Unpublished Paper, used as background material OMCT Conference "Children,

Torture and other Forms of Violence" Tampere, Finland. 27th Nov to

2nd Dec 2001. Paper was also presented at the University of NSW Conference

in Sydney "Where to from Here." 6th to 9th December 2001.

3.

B. Rogalla "Modern day torture: Government sponsored neglect of asylum

seeker children under the Australian mandatory immigration detention regime."

2002. Publication in Progress.

4.

A more comprehensive account of how the needs of children are neglected

inside IDCs is in the submission from the KIDS working party to this HREOC

inquiry, especially in the sections on Health and Mental Health.

5.

CROC, article 37

6.

CROC, article 19

7.

OMCT Media Release, Geneva. Oct 4: 2001

8.

CROC, article 3

9.

CROC, article 2

10.

CROC, article 8

11.

CROC, article 3

12.

United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their

Liberty, articles 81-87: 1990

13.

Australasian Correctional Services is the company contracted by DIMIA

to operate immigration detention services. But the company operates as

Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) from its head office in Sydney.

14.

P. Flood, A.O. "Report of Inquiry into Immigration Detention Procedures."

p 32: February 2001

15.

Commonwealth Ombudsman. "Report of an Own Motion Investigation into

the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' Immigration Detention

Centres", p 2: March 2001

16.

ibid, p 19-20

17.

P. Flood, p 42: February 2001

18.

B. Rogalla. Australia's Little Prisoners. Australian Children's Rights

News. March 2001.

19.

Report on the Human Rights Commissioner's Visit to Curtin IRPC in July

2000, Human Rights and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, http//www.hreoc.gov.Australia/human_rights/asylum/index.html

20.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. "Concluding observations

of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Sweden. 18.02.93." CRC/C/15/Add.2.

21.

Commonwealth Ombudsman. "Report of an Own Motion Investigation into

the Department on Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' Immigration Detention

Centres." Page 21: 2001

22.

ibid

23.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Summary Record of the 323rd meeting:

Nigeria. 1-10-01. CRC/C/SR.323

24.

P. Flood, p 26: February 2001

25.

CROC, article 42

26.

CROC, article 6

27.

CROC, preamble

28.

CROC, article 3.4

29.

B. Rogalla and T. Highfield: 2001

30.

B. Rogalla and T. Highfield, 2001

31.

CROC, article 15

32.

CROC, article 13

33.

CROC, article 14

34.

Rogalla and Highfield: 2001

35.

Sydney Morning Herald, Newspaper. "Two of Us": 7-7-01

36.

CROC, article 18

37.

CROC, article 9

38.

ABC television, "7.30 Report," comment by Immigration Minister

Phillip Ruddock: 14-8-01,

39.

After screening of the "4 Corners" television documentary on

ABC TV, [the child] was again admitted to hospital. He was later released

into foster care with a family in Sydney.

40.

Sydney Morning Herald, Newspaper. "Legal reprieve for refugee family."

April 9: 2002

41.

ibid, page 124

42.

ibid, page 129

43.

CROC, article 37

44.

Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in relation

to the Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention. J. Liberman et

al: 2002 http://www.julianburnside.com

45.

CROC, article 39

46.

Rogalla and Highfield: 2001

47.

The Australian, Newspaper. "Child abuse alleged at Woomera":

13-11-00

48.

The Australian, Newspaper. "Woomera officer tells of boy raped and

sold for cigarettes": 15-11-00

49.

The Australian, Newspaper. "Child abuse alleged at Woomera":

13-11-00

50.

The Australian, Newspaper. "Woomera detainees not segregated:"

18-11-00

51.

Flood 2001, p 23-24

52.

Amnesty International. Annual Report 2000. Australia

53.

Crimes (Torture) Act 1988 - No 148 of 1988 - Consolidated to 24 May 2001.

Section 6.1

54.

B. Rogalla. "Border Protection Australian Style: A modern form of

torture" Australian Children's Rights News. December 2001. http://wwwdci-au.org

55.

Convention Against Torture or other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading

Treatment and Punishment. Article 1: 1987

56.

Aksoy v Turkey, Judgement of 18 Dec 1996, European Court of Human Rights.

Cited in C. Mackenzie. Untitled Paper. Circulated as background material

at OMCT Conference "Children, Torture and other Forms of Violence"

Tampere, Finland, 27th Nov to 2nd Dec 2001

57.

Republic of Ireland v United Kingdom. 2 European Human Rights Reports

25, 1979-1980. Also cited in Mackenzie: 2001.

58.

Commonwealth Ombudsman, p 27: 2001 Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs,

Defence and Trade, p 25-26: 2001

59.

Migration Act 1958. Act No. 62 of 1958, amended 4 June 2001, section 189

60.

CAT, article 7

61.

CAT, article 16

Last

Updated 9 January 2003.