A case that shows that the UN has influential power and is a benefit to have is the Elmi V Australia case. Mr Sadiq Shek Elmi was a Somali citizen residing in Australia. Elmi claimed that his Somali clan the “Shikal” had been targeted by other clans, due to its wealth and its refusal to join or support the Hawiye militia. Members of the Somali rebellion clan “Hawiye militia” had killed Elmi's father, his brother, and had raped his sister, which led to her suicide in 1994. Elmi felt his life was also threatened. From 1991 until he left Somalia in 1997 Elmi continuously moved around the country for security reasons.
In 1997 Elmi arrived in Australia without valid travel documents and had been held in detention since. He made an application for …show more content…
The Committee Against Torture noted that the majority clan in Mogadishu could be regarded as exercising de facto control, and was therefore responsible for any acts of torture for the purposes of the Convention. Mr Elmi was subsequently permitted to stay in Australia.
The benefits of the UN Treaty bodies’ individual complaints system is that when a case is brought to them, they determine whether the case is admissible or inadmissible and decide what they think the state should do. However it is up to the State to agree or disagree with the treaty’s decision. Elmi v Australia is an example where Australia has agreed to follow the treaty’s decision and not deport Mr Elmi back to Somalia. This is an example of “closing the gap” between individual’s human rights and the states enforcing them. This case is essentially helping close the gap and reinforce the idea that the UN human right treaty bodies are beneficial because the state in this case (Australia) concurred with the UN’s decision and implemented the required actions for Elmi to stay in …show more content…
26th of November 2001 was when Adel Tebourski was arrested in France in connection with the killing of an Afghani military figure. He was tried before the Paris Criminal Court and on the 17th of May 2005 and was sentenced to imprisonment for six years and removal of certain civil rights for five years. By decree of the 19th of July 2006 he was dispossessed of his French nationality and an order for his deportation was issued. Tebourski then applied for asylum in France on 25th of July 2006. His application was rejected on the 28th of July 2006. He immediately appealed to the Refugee Appeals Board. On the 27th of July 2006 the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) requested that France refrain from deporting Tebourski until it had considered his complaint. Tebourski was deported to Tunisia on the 7th of August 2006 following a series of unsuccessful appeals in France. The Committee Against Torture noted France’s justifications for its deportation of Tebourski despite its request that his deportation be stayed. Article 3 rights applied to all, regardless of a person’s character. In failing to comply with the request for interim measures, France had violated Tebourski’s rights under Articles 3 and 22 of the CAT and was required to take measures to amend contravention of Article 3, and to consult with Tunisia on Tebourski’s welfare. This is an international example