CCPR/C/112/D/1968/2010 Claim under article 7 3.5 The authors contend that the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile constitutes cruel, inhuman and/or degrading punishment.6 While life imprisonment is, arguably, not of itself a breach of article 7, the imposition of such a sentence upon a juvenile transforms the sentence into a breach of the Covenant. Claim under article 15, paragraph 1 3.6 The authors claim that the State party is in breach of its obligation under article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant by failing to ensure that they did not become subject to a heavier penalty than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal act was committed. The retroactive application to the authors of the legislative amendments had the effect of removing the prospect of their release on parole before the end of their lives. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on the communication on 31 May 2012. Noting that the authors had appealed their sentences to the High Court and that the allegations raised complex questions of law and fact, the State party did not contest the admissibility of the communication. However, the State party argues that all claims are without merit and should be dismissed by the Committee. 4.2 According to the sentencing judgement, on 8 September 1988, the authors and three other persons formed a plan to attack a lone woman at random and rape her. In a car park they tried to abduct a woman, who managed to escape. They then selected Ms. J.B. and abducted her at knifepoint in her own car. It was proven at trial that the authors and Mr. J. collectively forced Ms. J.B. to submit to sexual penetration, then bound her legs to her neck, stuffed a scarf into her mouth, carried her to a nearby lake and immersed her until she drowned. After that, the group went to a nearby shopping centre where they attempted to sell jewellery they had stripped from Ms. J.B. They extracted the maximum amount of money possible from her back account using her bank card after obtaining from her the personal identification number. The following day, the authors travelled to a city north of Sydney, where they stole another car. They were arrested upon returning to Sydney that same day. 4.3 Mr. Elliot was found guilty of the abduction and murder, two charges of sexual intercourse (actions directly committed by his two co-accused) and two charges of robbery in company. Mr. Blessington was found guilty of abduction and murder, one charge of sexual intercourse directly perpetrated by him and two charges of robbery in company. The authors were concurrently sentenced for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on Mr. W.P. in a separate incident that occurred on 6 September 1988. 4.4 At the time of the offences, life imprisonment was a discretionary penalty for juveniles. The judge described the jury’s findings as reflecting “criminal responsibility of the highest degree”. He acknowledged the difficult and deprived backgrounds of the authors, which featured a persistent degradation of basic human values leading “inevitably to serious criminal activity”. He took into account the “extreme youth” of the authors and cited with approval previous authority that in the case of a young offender, the public interest is first and foremost in rehabilitating that person to become a good citizen. However, he concluded that he had no alternative other than to impose a life sentence. The 6 The authors refer to the general comment No. 20 (1992) of the Committee on the prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to Communication No. 265/87, Vuolanne v. Finland. 7