the rights and duties of individuals.2 While she has raised issues under the Covenant in her appeal to the High Court, she has not been provided with the Court’s reasons in relation to this aspect of her appeal. Australia were paid, no equivalent assistance was paid to the author. This is particularly serious, given that the divorce judgement granted the father all matrimonial property. 3.8 On behalf of Jessica, it is claimed that in violation of article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant, she does not have an effective remedy, since the Covenant is not incorporated into Australian domestic law in a manner which would enable her to assert her Covenant rights. She submits that the Covenant has no legal effect upon the rights and duties of individuals or governments, and refers in this context to an Australian court case and to the Attorney-General’s submission in the High Court proceedings in the present case.3 Also, Jessica has not been able to present any submissions or arguments about her interests. While the Family Court appointed a separate representative for her, he could not play an active role in the proceedings, since he could not participate at the separate court hearing of Jessica. 3.2 Ms. Laing claims that the forcible removal of her daughter Jessica, whom she would not see for many years, violates her rights under article 7. Neither she nor her son has the right to enter the US, nor, given the current court orders, is there any possibility of their visiting Jessica, even if they were able to enter the US. Ms. Laing has no means to pursue any further judicial action. She submits that such separation of a mother from her small child in the present circumstances amounts to cruel treatment in violation of article 7. 3.3 Ms. Laing claims that she was denied a fair trial, in violation of article 14, first in that the Family Court applied the incorrect law in its decision to remove Jessica from her custody. In the application to the Family Court in 1998 to re-consider the first appeal judgement, a majority of 3 judges, acknowledged that the first appeal court had applied the incorrect law, yet refused to re-open the matter. At the level of the High Court, it was conceded by all parties that the trial judge and the first full court had applied the incorrect law. However, on 18 November 1999, the High Court dismissed the appeal without giving reasons. 3.9 It is claimed that Jessica will suffer severe psychological damage if she were to be removed from the only family she has known and the source of her emotional, physical and social wellbeing, as well as her school friends. Returning her to her father, who has played no active role in her life, and to a place where there are no arrangements in place for her immediate care nor schooling, would amount to cruel treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.4 Secondly, Ms. Laing submits that the High Court did not provide reasons for its decision, in violation of article 14, paragraph 1. While the High Court decision implies that the removal orders for Jessica have immediate effect, the High Court indicated that the reasons for its decision would be provided later, thus leaving Ms. Laing without knowledge as to why the appeal failed before Jessica’s return to the US. 3.10 Jessica, as she is lawfully within Australian territory, she has a right, under article 12, paragraph 1 and 4, to remain in the country. If she were to be returned to the US, this right would be violated. 3.6 Ms. Laing claims that the removal of Jessica from her family impairs her enjoyment of family life, in violation of article 23, paragraph 1, in particular as the resolution of the case was seriously delayed. 3.11 It is claimed that Jessica was denied a fair trial, in violation of article 14. First, she was denied the right to participate in the proceedings regarding her own rights and to challenge the decision to remove her from Australia. The inability to have her interests determined separately and independently of her mother’s interests, has had a significant impact on Jessica’s ability to have the merits of her case considered. For example, when the Second Full Court of the Family Court judges refused to re-open the case, considering the mother’s default and conduct to be a determining factor against reopening of the case, Jessica’s interest in having the case re-opened was not considered separately. 3.7 She finally argues a violation of her rights under article 26, in that, while by operation of the Hague Convention the father's court costs in 3.12 Secondly, she was denied a fair trial in that the Family Court judge applied the incorrect law when deciding that she was to be returned. Counsel 2 3 3.5 It is further claimed that in view of the delays in resolving the proceedings concerning Jessica, any interference of the authors’ home cannot not be said to be reasonable in terms of article 17, when measured against the irreparable damage and consequences to the authors’ family. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, at page 287 of supporting documentation. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh, and DJL v. The Central Authority, in the High Court proceedings of 7 October 1999, paragraph 48-50. 8