Contravention of Human Rights: David Hicks vs. Australia
There have been instances where citizens Human Rights have been contravened by their respective governments. One of these cases is one of Hicks vs. Australia where there is an indication that his rights were violated by being detained without the proper constitutional jurisdiction. This paper will focus on how the government of Australia violated the rights of detainment of David Hicks. It will follow the procedural flaws of the government in the handling of the case of David Hicks. Even though the case took long to be put into the limelight, its course and eventual exposure revealed anomalies in which countries and especially Australia. The case of Hicks is in such a manner that there was a gross violation of the rights of being free from being arbitrarily detained. There can be a validity of the detention of Hicks by the Australian government. However, it disappoints in the manner of its narrowness.
David Hicks submitted his claim of complaint in September 2010, and therefore the gap between the submission of the complaint and determination of the case of five years is very disappointing (Holroyd, 2007). However, this then reflects the complexity of the case in that the council of David Hicks submitted a more that 100-page case to the jury. The case was handled by the UN Human Rights Committee, but they did not address the case in the most appropriate manner possible. While Hicks case proved to be successful regarding the claim of arbitrary detention, many of his other claims were not handled in the most appropriate manner (Holroyd, 2007). The case for the arbitrary detention of Hicks can be found in the prohibition under ICCPR Article 9 (1). The case of David Hicks represents a case of hostile disdain of the Australian government about the handling of individuals who have been suspected to be terrorists. Therefore, the collaboration between the intergovernmental relations in the handling of the case of Hicks was a gross violation of his rights under ICCPR in international law and Human Rights.
A briefcase of Hicks is that he was apprehended in Afghanistan in 2001, soon after the United States invaded the country after the September where he was suspected of aiding the Al-Qaida or the Taliban in perpetuating terrorism. He was then apprehended and take to be detained at Guantanamo Bay as dorm January 2002 to March 2007. At the facility, he was held at the order of the United States and was not charged with anything related tocrime until June 2004 (Richard, 2007). His trial had been delayed by the arrangement of the united states for military justice for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This was made more complex because the courts found it unconstitutional to proceed. It was during this time that Hicks claims that he was subjected to ill-treatment and torture.
In February 2007, he pleaded guilty to aiding terrorism and was subsequently sentenced to seven years in prison by the United States military commission. When the times served is put to account, it was realized that he had remaining time more months to serve. As from May 2007, he was transferred to Australia from Guantanamo Bay, where he was to serve the remaining seven months on the precept of Prisoner Transfer Agreement (Richard, 2007). In December 2007, he was released and was then imposed a control order by the Federal Magistrates Court which was to expire in December 2008(Holroyd, 2007). The control order imposed sanctions to his freedom based on whom he would associate with and freedom of speech.
The case on the violation of Hicks is primarily on the time which he spent in detention in Australia. The violation of Article 9 (1), was evoked regarding the time spent by Hicks in detention in the country as from May to December 2007. Despite that the extent his claim to cover the times which he was in Guantanamo Bay, they were inadmissible because it had not happened in Australia. He also attempted to extend his claim to cover the period which he was restricted, but it failed under ICCPR (Leigh, 2007).
Not as a way of exonerating the United States, abut it can be deduced that Australia assisted and aided the country in detaining and violating the rights of David Hicks. The mistreatment here can be viewed in the angle of material, moral and political dimensions. This is because the acceptance of detaining Hicks was a show of publicly cooperating with the propriety of the project of Guantanamo Bay, which can be considered a deviation in international law (Leigh, 2007). When the case is viewed under the lenses of the ICCPR long-standing law, it can be ascertained that Australia is accountable for aiding in the breaching the rights of Hicks because he was its citizen. This was particularly with the fact that Hicks were considered to have an influence on matters of international relations (Malcolm, 2007).
This case, therefore, means that Australia is jointly accountable for breaching the rights of Hicks when viewed under international relations law and the ICCPR conventions. Australia is liable for jointly detaining Hicks in Guantanamo Bay and beyond. There is significant evidence which shows and indicate that Australia had effective control of Hicks since the facilitation of detainee transfer was made possible. Therefore, is can be argued that Australia had the capacity and capability of putting positive measures which would ensure that Hicks would be treated in a manner which resonates with the provisions of ICCPR.
The Australian government would have then made its overtures to the government of the UnitedStates to ensure that Hicks was returned home earlier. This can be ascertained with the fact that the United Kingdom has over the past successfully managed to return most if her citizen's detainees from Guantanamo Bay. This was possible to avert trials by the United States military committee and then to curtail any possible reasons for arbitrary detention and cases of ill-treatment. It is therefore determined that Australia did not take any measures for the protection of David Hicks on the violation of his Human Rights (Malcolm, 2007). However, about the provisions of the ICCPR, Australia’s failure to bring David Hicks within her jurisdiction does not hold her liable for the failure of failing to violation of the rights of its citizen by another country outside her territory. Therefore, Australia is then free from the complaint of Hicks rights being violated abroad.
Therefore, it is determinable that Australia is liable for the violation and breaching of the rights of Hicks due to his detention in the country. The prisoner transfer agreement between the two countries puts Australia squarely in the detention of Hicks under the Article 9(1) of the UN Human Rights Committee (Malcolm, 2007). There was much information about the case of David Hicks in the public domain which would then cast the fairness of the trial of Hicks by the UnitedStates military committee. It is therefore determinable that the Australia government could have known of the condition of the ill treatment of Hicks after its numerous contacts with him while in the Guantanamo Bay. In addition to that, it would have known of the condition of the trial of their citizen and therefore made the necessary arrangements in overseeing fairness without his ill treatment and being held in a hostile environment.
The Australian government should have then known that sentencing of Hicks was done under violation of his rights and denial of fair justice. Therefore, it should have made measures to ensure that the sentence was not enforced. Again, the Australian government did not put any effort to have a prisoner transfer negotiation which would have seen him on Australian ground. The deal would have done incompatibility with the provisions of the ICCPR, in the formulation of a plea which would have seen the return of Hicks in Australia. This is because states should make every measure to ensure that the rights of her citizens are protected when they are returned to the country.
The country should have done better negotiations on Hicks plea deal about the agreements between the two countries. This is in the fact the provisions of the European Court of Human Rights, has decreed that prisoner transfer cannot be done if justice was denied blatantly. Therefore, even if it is for humanitarian purposes, a state cannot be allowed to agree of flagrantly denying justice and carrying out the unjust sentence. This primarily when viewed from the perspective of prisoner transfer of Hicks to Australia and continued extension of sentence.
In conclusion, the Australian government can be held accountable for the violation of the Human Rights of David Hicks. This is in the extension of his sentence in the country where he was supposed to have finished his sentence closer to his family and friends. Therefore, Australia must take measures which would prevent future. It was an abominable treatment of David Hicks by both Australia and the UnitedStates. Based on the case of the UN Human Rights Committee Article 9 (1) detention of Hicks for the seven months in Australian soil, it was a gross violation of his Human Rights. This is in the cooperation with the United States in perpetuating its disgraceful Guantanamo Bay enterprise.
References
Bennet, J. (2015). "David Hicks wins an appeal against terrorism conviction in US military court in Cuba." Australian Broadcasting Commission News.
Holroyd, J. (2007). "Hicks charged with material support for terrorism." The Age. Fairfax Media.
Leigh, s. (2007). Detainee 002: The Case of David Hicks. Melbourne. Melbourne University Press. http://dx.doi.org/978-0-522-85400-8.
Malcolm, f. (2007). "Human rights education is a human right." Human Rights Education Conference, Faculty of Education & The University of Melbourne Human Rights Forum. The University of Melbourne.
Richard, A. (2007). "Book review: Detainee 002: the case of David Hicks". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media.
Comments