The legal team of former Guantanamo Bay prisoner David Hicks submitted a to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on August 23.
It argues the Australian government treatment of Hicks has violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party.
It accuses the Australian government of 鈥渦nlawful, arbitrary detention鈥 and 鈥渞etroactive punishment鈥 of Hicks. The argument rests on the grounds that Hicks鈥 conviction by a US military commission at Guantanamo of 鈥減roviding material support for terrorism鈥 had no basis in international or US law at the time.
The communication said: 鈥淏y entering into a Prisoner Transfer Arrangement 鈥 with the US, to enforce Mr Hicks鈥 sentence of imprisonment in an Australian prison, and by enacting related domestic legislation, Australia assumed direct responsibility for the unlawful, retrospective criminal punishment of Mr Hicks.
鈥淪uch conduct was not justifiable and reasonable alternatives to it were available in order to achieve the humanitarian purpose of securing Mr Hicks鈥 release from Guantanamo Bay.鈥
Hicks鈥 submission to the UN also says the duress surrounding his plea agreement, particularly the prospect of denial of a fair trial and his ill treatment in US custody, should render his conviction null and void under international law.
The communication says: 鈥淢r Hicks鈥 conviction was based on an unlawful plea agreement with the US, since there can be no legal authority for a state to offer or rely upon a plea in relation to a retroactive offence.
鈥淒uress of circumstances surrounding Mr Hicks鈥 plea, particularly the imminent prospect the manifest denial of a fair trial and his cumulative ill treatment in US custody, further rendered it null and void under international law.
鈥淭he Plea Agreement required Mr Hicks to surrender his right of appeal, freedom to speak freely for 12 months after conviction, and freedom from undue interference by law enforcement authorities.
鈥淏y adopting the Plea Agreement as its own, or otherwise by assisting in its adoption by the US, Australia is internationally responsible for violations of Mr Hicks鈥 rights stemming from the conditions of the unlawful Plea Agreement.鈥
A US diplomatic cable dated June 20, 2006, and released by WikiLeaks on August 29, showed that Australian officials disregarded claims that Hicks鈥 was mistreated in Guantanamo and took at face value all the reports from US officials regarding prisoner treatment.
The US embassy in Canberra said then prime minister 鈥淛ohn Howard and his government have taken pains to defend our actions consistently, even if it costs them short term political points鈥.
Australian government prosecutors are trying to confiscate Hicks鈥 royalties and possible literary prizes for his book, Guantanamo: My Journey.
Comments
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink