CCPR/C/120/D/2941/2017
2.9
The author also submits that on 8 June 2012, the DNA department of the police
informed him that they were planning to use their physical and violent force to enforce an
“unlawful court order for taking the DNA sample from” him. The author requested the
Committee to protect him from irreversible brutal physical harming or killing, which the
police, on behalf of the State party, had threatened to use to carry out a false and fraudulent
DNA court order in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.
2.10 The author also makes reference to his intention, in 2009, to obtain employment as a
commercial vehicle driver. He submits that, with that purpose, he applied on 7 and 27
January 2009 for an Assessment Notice under the Working with Children Act, and for a
Driver Accreditation to drive commercial passenger vehicles under the Transport Act. On
14 December 2010, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal denied him such
employment. The author then lodged an application to the Supreme Court of Victoria for a
remedy to appeal the decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. On 22
May 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the author’s appeal to set aside the decision of the
Tribunal and remitted the case for a fresh hearing by a different judge. The author explains
that on 14 April 2016, the Tribunal registered his submission and ordered the Department
of Justice and the Taxi Services Commission to provide him with the Working with
Children Assessment Notice, and Driver Accreditation. However, the Department of Justice
and the Taxi Services Commission refused to comply with the order and applied to the
Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria for leave to appeal the decision. On 17
February 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave and upheld the
decision of the Tribunal.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the police refused to provide him with protection from the
domestic violence of his ex-wife, and that this amounts to a violation of his rights under
articles 3, 5, 16 and 26 of the Covenant.
3.2
He also claims a violation of his rights under articles 3, 5, 9 (1), (3) and (5), 14 (1),
(2) and (3) (b), (d), (e) and (g), 16 and 26 of the Covenant since the police conspired against
him and falsely accused him of trying to kill his ex-wife; they abused their power by
concealing exculpatory evidence and arbitrarily arrested him. The author also submits that
the State party denied him bail as the police wanted to spy on his legal communications to
find more issues that they needed to cover up, and that the courts of the State party denied
him “natural and procedural justice”.
3.3
The author also claims a violation of his rights under articles 7, 17 and 19 of the
Covenant, since the State party has unlawfully punished him by not allowing him to work
as a bus driver for seven years, thereby discriminating against him. He adds that this
unlawful punishment, including for having expressed his opinions on the political and
justice system, has caused him mental suffering and a huge financial loss and has
negatively impacted his private life. He considers that the State party has to be held
responsible for his financial loss.
3.4
The author maintains that the State party has also violated his rights under articles 2
and 14 (5) of the Covenant, since his petition for mercy to appeal his conviction was
refused by the Governor of Victoria without any reason.
3.5
Finally, the author claims that the police threat to use physical force against him to
carry out a false and fraudulent DNA court order would, if implemented, violate article 7 of
the Covenant.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
4.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
3