case reveal a violation of the said provision of the Covenant. The facts of the communication, as submitted by the author and uncontested by the State party, show that "on 30 September 1993 a warrant for the author’s execution on 5 October 1993 was read to him... A stay of execution was granted during the night of 4 to 5 October 1993". In our view, reading a warrant of execution to a detainee remaining confined to death row for such a long time, and attempting to proceed to his execution after so many years - at a time when the State party had raised in the detainee a legitimate expectation that the execution would never be carried out - constitute in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant, to which the author was subjected. Moreover, they constitute such further "compelling circumstances" that should have led the Committee, even if it wanted to reaffirm its previous jurisprudence, to find that prolonged detention on death row revealed, in the present cases, a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Communication No. 560/1993 Submitted by: A. [represented by counsel] Alleged victim: The author State party: Australia Declared admissible: 4 April 1995 (fifty-third) Date of adoption of Views: 3 April 1997 (sixty-first session) The facts as submitted by the author Subject matter: Mandatory immigration detention of asylum seekers 2.1 A., a Cambodian national born in 1934, arrived in Australia by boat, code-named "Pender Bay", together with 25 other Cambodian nationals, including his family, on 25 November 1989. Shortly after his arrival, he applied for refugee status under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto. His application was formally rejected in December 1992. Procedural issues: Admissibility ratione temporis Concession by State party of admissibility of one claim - Scope of claims under articles 9, paragraph 4, and 14, paragraph 1, held over to merits - Inadmissibility for failure to exhaust domestic remedies of two claims Failure to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility 2.2 Counsel provides a detailed chronology of the events in the case. The author's initial application for refugee status was filed on 9 December 1989, with the assistance of a Khmer interpreter and an immigration official. Legal assistance was not offered during the preparation of the application. On 13 December 1989, the author and other occupants of the boat were interviewed separately by the same immigration official. On 21 December 1989, the author and other Pender Bay occupants were flown to Villawood Detention Centre in Sydney. On 27 April 1990, the author was again interviewed by immigration officials regarding his application for refugee status. The application was rejected by the Federal Government's Determination of Refugee Status Committee on 19 June 1990; the decision was not communicated to the author. Counsel notes that, on that day, none of the Pender Bay detainees had yet seen a lawyer. Substantive issues: “Arbitrariness” of detention Right to and scope of judicial review of lawfulness of detention - Compensation for unlawful detention Articles of the Covenant: 9 (1) (4) and (5), 14 (1) and (3) (b), (c) and (d) juncto article 2 (1) Article of the Optional Protocol and Rules of procedure: 5, paragraph 2 (b) Finding: Violation [articles 9, paragraphs 1 and 4, juncto 2, paragraph 3] 1. The author of the communication is A., a Cambodian citizen who, at the time of submission of his communication on 20 June 1993, was detained at the Department of Immigration Port Hedland Detention Centre, Cooke Point, Western Australia. He was released from detention on 27 January 1994. He claims to be the victim of violations by Australia of article 9, paragraphs 1, 4 and 5, and article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d), juncto article 2, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Australia on 25 December 1991. 2.3 Following intercession by concerned parties, the Minister for Immigration allowed the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission to review the Pender Bay cases. Upon conclusion of its review, the Commission was authorized to provide further statements and material to the Immigration Department. Commission lawyers first visited the 89