The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Australia to take all necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 61/2023 concerning Peter Iruviere Mills, starting with according him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Peter Iruviere Mills (Australia): Opinion No. 61/2023.
CHILD TRAFFICKING VICTIM UNABLE TO OBTAIN VISA
Peter Iruviere Mills, presumed to be Nigerian, is a 22-year-old man. Without reliable identification documents, he lacks verifiable information about his biological family. As a child, he was kidnapped and trafficked from Nigeria by individuals claiming to be his parents, who later abandoned him in the care of another woman. On 6 August 2011, Mr. Mills arrived in Australia with a person claiming to be his mother and two other minors on a skilled-sponsored visa. He was either 8 or 9 years old at the time.
In 2015, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection identified that Mr. Mills was not the biological child of the couple who brought him to Australia, resulting in the cancellation of their skilled-sponsored visa in January 2016 due to forged documents. No action was taken against the traffickers or to support Mr. Mills. Under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946, the Minister for Immigration became his guardian, and in October 2016, he was granted a bridging visa. In 2018, Mr. Mills was removed from his supposed aunt's care due to abusive behaviour, following which he became homeless.
In July 2019, he was sentenced to a youth supervision order of 9 months for offences committed in 2018. In January 2020, Mr. Mills was detained for 5 months for crimes committed in 2019 and 2020, while he was 17 years old. On 4 June 2020, he was sentenced to time served (5 months) and ordered to compelte an 18-month community corrections order. On the same day, he was detained under section 189(1) of the Migration Act 1958, since as he did not have a visa, he was considered an unlawful non-citizen.
Mr. Mills applied for a protection visa in September 2020, which was refused two months later. In May 2022, he engaged his own legal representative and identified himself as a trafficking victim. The Nigeria High Commission has no records of Mr. Mills, and his identity remains unverified. He requested ministerial intervention in May 2022 but was refused a bridging visa multiple times.
At the time of the source's communication, Mr. Mills was being held at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre, facing indefinite detention if Nigeria did not accept him. Saint Joseph’s College and the Australian Red Cross have pledged support for him should he be granted a visa to rejoin the Australian community.
The Government of Australia was given the opportunity to answer these allegations, which it did. However, since their response was received by the Working Group past the extended deadline, the Working Group cannot treat it as if it were presented within due delays.
HELD IN ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION FOR THREE YEARS DUE TO HIS MIGRATORY STATUS
The Working Group, referencing the Migration Act, reiterated its concern over previous cases of mandatory immigration detention in Australia. Although the Australian Government contends that such detention is lawful under the Migration Act, this justification is not accepted as legitimate under international human rights law. Domestic laws that contravene international human rights law, and have been repeatedly highlighted to the Government, cannot serve as a valid legal basis for detention.
In this light, the Working Group concluded that Mr. Mills' detention under this legislation was arbitrary under category I, violating article 9(1) of the Covenant.
The source, the Working Group, and the Australian Government agreed that Mr. Mills was trafficked into the country on 6 August 2011, allegedly at the age of 11. After his bridging visa expired on 4 June 2020, he was deemed an irregular migrant and placed in immigration detention. Having been detained for approximately 3 years due to his migration status, the Working Group considered his detention to be indefinite. According to revised deliberation No. 5, any form of administrative detention in the context of migration must be a last resort. Therefore, the Working Group found that Mr. Mills' detention was due to the exercise of his legitimate rights of seeking asylum under article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was thus violated.
Furthermore, in line with the Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 15, the Working Group recalled that Mr. Mills is entitled to the right to liberty and security of person, as guaranteed under article 9 of the Covenant, and that Australia must ensure these rights without any distinction, as required by article 2 of the Covenant. Mr. Mills having been subjected to de facto indefinite detention due to his immigration status, the Working Group considered both of these articles were clearly violated.
Consequently, the Working Group found his detention arbitrary, falling under category II.
UNABLE TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION
According to the source, under both categories III and IV, Mr. Mills has been subjected to administrative detention without remedy. The Working Group chose to examine this claim only under the latter category.
Mr. Mills has experienced de facto indefinite detention due to his migratory status, without the possibility of challenging the legality of his detention before a judicial body, as guaranteed by article 9(4) of the Covenant. In reaching this conclusion, the Working Group notably recalled numerous findings by the Human Rights Committee, which have determined that mandatory immigration detention in Australia and the inability to challenge such detention violate article 9 of the Covenant.
The Working Group thus found this situation arbitrary, falling under category IV.
DISCRIMINATED ON THE BASIS OF HIS MIGRATORY STATUS
Finally, the source asserted that Mr. Mills, as a non-citizen, could not effectively challenge the legality of his detention in domestic courts and tribunals. This situation appears to stem from the High Court of Australia’s decision in Al-Kateb v. Godwin, which allows Australian citizens to challenge administrative detention but not non-citizens.
The Working Group examined these arguments across different cases and consistently found that the Government of Australia was failing to demonstrate how non-citizens could effectively challenge their continued detention following this High Court decision. As such, the Working Group found that this failure was in violation of articles 9 and 26 of the Covenant.
Consequently, the Working Group concluded that Mr. Mills' detention was arbitrary, falling under category V.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
The UN Working Group Against Arbitrary Detention considered the detention of Peter Iruviere Mills to be arbitrary, falling under categories I, II, IV and V due to violations of articles 2, 3, 7–9 and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Working Group expressed grave concern regarding Mr. Mills' continued detention despite the arbitrary nature of his arrest and called on the Government of Australia to take immediate action.
The Working Group requested the Government of Australia to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Mr. Mills without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group considered that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Mills immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
The Working Group also urged the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Mills and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.
Comments