Furthermore, he submits that the State party’s assumption that Jessica’s future custody remains to be finally determined by a US court lacks foundation, since there are final orders of an American court awarding permanent custody to Jessica’s father, with no visitation rights for the mother. of that Convention is the best interests of the child. Moreover, the fact that the US Court may award custody to Jessica’s father is not evidence of a violation of article 24 (1) of the Covenant. In relation to child abduction hearings, the Full Court of the Family Court has determined that it is an abducted child’s best interests to be returned to its habitual country of residence and to have issues of custody and access determined by the courts of that country. In the alternative that the Committee finds this claim admissible, the State party submits that it is unfounded. 5.2 In respect of the State party’s allegation that article 2 is not an autonomous right, counsel submits that the jurisprudence of the Committee may be reversed at any time, in light of further arguments regarding consideration of another case, and that recent jurisprudence of the Committee reveals a shift in the application of article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant towards providing a freestanding right for individuals. Moreover, in view of the particular circumstances that Australia has no Bill of Rights, no uniform constitutional, statutory or common law protections, which reflect the Covenant, leaves the authors with no effective remedies to safeguard their rights. 4.24 The State party submits that Ms. Laing’s claim under article 26 is inadmissible ratione materiae on three grounds; firstly, she has no claim under article 1 of the Covenant because she has not submitted evidence to the effect that she suffered financial discrimination; secondly, she has not substantiated her claim; and thirdly, in the event that the Committee is satisfied that the author has shown a difference in the treatment of Ms. Laing and Jessica’s father based on one of the prohibited grounds in Article 26, it submits that there is a failure to substantiate the assumption that this differentiation was not reasonable and objective and that the aim was not to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant. 5.3 In respect of the claim under article 7 of the Covenant, counsel submits that the salient issue is whether a certain treatment which a State party is responsible for has the effect of being cruel. She considers that the forced separation of Jessica from her family constitutes cruel treatment because it has the effect of imposing severe suffering on Jessica and her family. Furthermore, the question of whether the treatment of a child is cruel requires an assessment of the child’s particular circumstances, and in that regard a mere threat of such treatment is sufficient. 4.25 In this respect, it submits that Ms. Laing received legal or financial assistance from the Australian authorities in respect of the Hague Convention proceedings in Australia. She was granted legal aid by the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission in respect of the original hearing of the Hague Convention application in 1996, and the proceedings in 1999 before the Full Court of the Family Court. She was also granted financial assistance in respect of her subsequent appeal to the High Court. No financial contribution was required from her towards the cost of these proceedings; counsel had agreed to represent Ms. Laing in these proceedings on a pro bono basis, notwithstanding the provision of legal aid. In addition, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia ordered on 9 April 1998, that Jessica’s father pay costs relating to their return to the US for Ms. Laing, Jessica and Samuel. In the alternative that the Committee finds this claim admissible, the State party submits that it should be dismissed as unfounded. 5.4 Counsel also submits that where the objectives of the Hague Convention for a speedy return of a child are not satisfied, the strict and inflexible application may be oppressive and unfair in certain circumstances. In the present case it took 13 months from the time of the unlawful removal until the first decision of an Australian court, and after 6 years, final resolution of the case remained outstanding. 5.5 Moreover, the psychiatric report submitted by the authors’ suggest that Jessica is sensitive to change and has difficulty with sleep and nightmares as a result of the temporary separation by police from her family in 1998. The State party has not challenged this evidence. Another report prepared for the Family Court when Jessica was 2 years old noted that “an abrupt and permanent separation from her mother would be associated with protest and extreme distress...” Counsel submits that mental distress may constitute cruel treatment. Author’s comments 5.1 In his response of 23 April 2001 to the State party’s submission, counsel submits that the State party is mistaken when stating that the Australian courts considered Jessica’s interests to be of paramount importance. The operation of the Hague Convention and its implementing legislation, show that the child’s best interest is not taken into account. 5.6 In relation to the State party’s contention under article 12 of the Covenant, that Jessica has the right to be reunited with her father as a child and as an individual within a family, counsel submits that a 12