UN: Australia violated international law by torturing asylum seekers in offshore detention

GENEVA — A United Nations committee has ruled that Australia violated international law by allowing an Iranian asylum seeker to be subjected to torture and mistreatment during years of offshore detention.

The man arrived in Australia by boat in 2013 and was subsequently transferred to a detention facility on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. He remained there for three years, enduring what the UN Committee Against Torture described as harsh conditions and severe physical abuse, including an incident in which a security guard slit his throat.

While the man was brought to Australia for medical treatment in 2019, he was detained for another three years before his eventual release in 2022.

The Australian government argued it was not responsible for the man's treatment, claiming it did not have control over the facilities in Papua New Guinea. However, the UN committee rejected this argument, concluding that Australia maintains responsibility because it funded and managed the camps.

The committee has ordered Australia to provide the victim with compensation and rehabilitation. It also demanded that the government take steps to ensure such violations do not occur again.

An Australian government spokesperson said officials are carefully reviewing the committee’s findings.

A landmark United Nations ruling has directly challenged the legitimacy of Australia’s long-standing offshore processing regime, a cornerstone of the country’s hardline migration policy. Designed as a deterrent against asylum seekers arriving by boat, the model relies on the indefinite detention of individuals in third-party nations under often-harsh conditions.

For years, Canberra’s primary legal defense rested on the argument that it held no liability for these facilities because they operated outside Australian sovereign territory. However, the UN ruling effectively dismantles this "extra-territorial" defense. It concludes that Australia’s role in funding, managing, and contracting services for these centers constitutes "effective control," thereby mandating compliance with international human rights law.

The decision establishes a significant legal precedent: a state cannot "outsource" its human rights obligations to another jurisdiction to evade accountability. This finding carries profound implications for similar policies worldwide, most notably the United Kingdom’s contentious plan to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda.

While the ruling lacks immediate enforcement power, it exerts considerable diplomatic and political pressure on the Australian government. It leaves Canberra in an increasingly tenuous position, forced to navigate the widening gap between its domestic border security mandates and its commitments under international law.