CCPR/C/112/D/1968/2010 4.14 The State party acknowledges that it is possible that the authors may serve the remainder of their lives in prison if they are not released either on parole or pursuant to the royal prerogative of mercy. However, this does not render their sentence in violation of the Covenant. The test is whether realistic avenues for release exist in law and in fact. 4.15 While age must be taken into account in determining whether a particular sentence is grossly disproportionate or sufficient to give rise to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile with limited prospects for release will not necessarily breach article 7 of the Covenant. The question is whether the high threshold set for release is appropriate, having regard not only to the age of the authors, but also the circumstances of the offence, the need for retribution and deterrence and the need for protection of the community. It is the view of the State party that the sentences imposed on the authors strike an appropriate balance in that regard. Claims under article 10, paragraph 3 4.16 The treatment of the authors in prison is consistent with this provision, as they have benefited substantially from prison programmes and policies, which further their personal development, encourage social contact with the outside world and provide skills, which would assist in their reintegration into the community if released. The nature of their sentences does not deprive their treatment in prison of that rehabilitative character. The authors have access to the standard services available to other inmates, including welfare, chaplaincy, psychology and drug and alcohol rehabilitation services. They have access to a controlled telephone system through which they may contact family and friends, in addition to agencies such as the Ombudsman of New South Wales and legal aid. They can also communicate freely via letters, and have visits from family, friends and legal representatives. 4.17 As indicated by the authors, they have made use of prison programmes and services and work opportunities, and participated in communal activities and assisting prison authorities. For instance, Mr. Blessington has participated in courses to improve his literacy and numeracy and on cooking and kitchen work. He has been employed as a sweeper. He has also participated in a sex offender programme and drug and alcohol courses. Mr. Elliot has worked as a librarian and as part of a maintenance crew. He has completed qualifications in carpentry and joinery, and undertaken studies in advanced building techniques and information technology. He has participated in drug and alcohol courses and programmes on conflict resolution, communication skills, art and music. 4.18 Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Covenant is directed at ensuring respect for the inherent dignity of detained persons, regardless of how soon they may be released from detention. The high threshold applicable for the release of the authors on parole does not deprive their treatment in prison of its essentially reformative and rehabilitative character. If the authors’ sentences were deemed relevant in this respect, the State party submits that it is permissible for States to weigh the aim of rehabilitation against the legitimate interests of adequate punishment, public safety and deterrence. That position holds, notwithstanding the status of the authors as juveniles at the time of their offences. 4.19 The authors’ sentences are consistent with relevant internationally accepted minimum standards. Thus, rule 17.1 (a) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Justice (the Beijing Rules), which contains guiding principles on adjudication and disposition, stipulates that a sentence imposed on a juvenile must be in proportion not only to “the circumstances and the needs of the juvenile”, but also to “the circumstances and gravity of the offence” and the “needs of the society”. The commentary 10