individual communication to the united nations ... - Community Law

13Article 24The breaches of Article 2 and 17 particularly impact on the three children under theAuthor‟s care, who, due to their specific vulnerability as children, are protected byArticle 24.Part 22.1 Admissibility of Claim to the UN Human Rights CommitteeThe Committee must determine the admissibility of any Communication made by anindividual regarding a State party to the Covenant in accordance with Article 1 of theOptional Protocol, under:(a) Articles 2, 3 and 5(2) of the Optional Protocol; and(b) Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights CommitteeFor the reasons set out below, the Author respectfully requests that the Committee determinesher claims in relation to Articles 2, 17 and 24 of the ICCPR admissible.Article 1: It is submitted that the Author is subject to the jurisdiction of Australia, State partyto the Optional Protocol.Article 2: It is submitted that the Author has exhausted all effective remedies available to herin Australia.In Pratt and Morgan v Jamaica (210/86, 225/87) the Human Rights Committee said:“That the local remedies rule does not require resort to appeals that objectively haveno prospect of success, is a well established principle of international law and of theCommittee‟s jurisprudence.”Australia and Victoria do not have legislation which criminalises the an unlawfuleviction. The Author submits that this status has limited the number of effectiveremedies available to her and that, as described above, she has exhausted all effectiveand available remedies with no satisfactory outcome.The domestic remedies available to the Author for this breach of her human rights are:a) Civil Proceedings;b) Victims of Crime Assistance Application; andc) Complaints to the relevant police complaint investigation authority.Ashling Gandy v Australia, Individual Communication to the Human Rights Committee