Mr. Jarrod Clyne:

The first fundamental point to note, which members may realise but which is worth restating, is that this is not a binding procedure. It is not analogous to European procedures in that way. If an individual submits a complaint or communication, then the state responds. Sometimes there is further back and forth. It is on the papers and at the end, the committee issues its view. It is only a view. It is not technically a decision. They call on the state party, which in this case would be Ireland, to follow those views. It is then over to the Government to reflect and consider what they do in response. The Senator is right that it is not a panacea. It is an additional tool. It can be used by an individual or broader groups for strategic purposes. For example, if you look at the Human Rights Committee views relating to Mellet v.Ireland and Whelan v.Ireland on access to safe and legal abortion, it gives a sense that while they did not change the law, I understand there was a domestic political process going on and perhaps those views supported advocacy domestically. I just want to be clear on the legal status.

In terms of what kind of cases come up, perhaps I might send the secretariat a link to our website that lists short summaries. In Australia there was an individual with psychosocial disabilities who was deprived of legal capacity, and some Australians were also denied the right to vote. The committee concluded that the state in those cases had not fulfilled its obligations under the convention. They recommended specific remedies for the individual and then general remedies as well. It is a little hard to generalise exactly what might come up. I should also note that all of the human rights committees are not incredibly well resourced. The number of communications they are able to process and come to decisions or publish views on in any given year may be about ten or so, and they receive a large number of communications. They necessarily have to be somewhat selective while trying to get through everything. I am saying that I would not expect a flood of communications and views from the CRPD committee in relation to Ireland. Perhaps they might choose some particularly relevant ones that could impact other countries.

It takes several years, at a minimum, for communication to go through this process. It is not always a quick process, although the CRPD committee can advise on interim measures that should be undertaken. Again, this is purely on a voluntary basis but states should interpret their obligations in good faith and implement them to the extent possible, while recognising they are not binding. I hope that gives the committee a sense of a reality check. As the Senator said, it is not a panacea. I will send some summaries of the communications the CRPD committee has published so far regarding commitments around 40 or 50 of the obligations.