CCPR/C/112/D/1968/2010 New South Wales for a determination of their sentence after eight years. 12 However, as a result of the amendments the authors must now wait 30 years before applying for determination of their sentences, which may then result in a non-parole period being set. Those amendments do not change the punishment or sanction at law applicable to the offence of murder when committed by juveniles. As affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the amendments did not alter the nature of the sentence to life imprisonment. Furthermore, it cannot be said definitively that the authors would necessarily have been released earlier under either the scheme applicable at the time of the offences, or that applicable at the time they were sentenced. 4.24 The validity of the changes to parole conditions was challenged before the High Court again more recently in the case of Crump v. New South Wales by an offender in respect of whom a non-release recommendation had been made at the time of sentencing. The plaintiff argued that section 154 A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 was invalid since it purported to alter the effect of the judicial determination in 1997 which rendered him eligible for parole in 2003. The High Court unanimously dismissed the case. According to the judges, the “practical reality” is that “legislative and administrative changes in parole systems” occur and the 1997 order did not “create any right or entitlement in the plaintiff to his release on parole”. Chief Justice French observed that “the executive decision to release or not to release a prisoner on parole may reflect policies and practices which change from time to time. There nevertheless remains only one judicial sentence”. 4.25 The practice of making non-release recommendations has a long history in Australia. It arose precisely because judges were aware of the administrative practice of releasing prisoners on parole. In the case of the authors, Justice Newman’s recommendation was made for the purpose of it later being taken into account in any decisions regarding eligibility for release. It may be assumed that his recommendation would have been given weight in any application by the authors for determination of sentence or release on parole. 4.26 The State party contests the authors’ submission that there is no requirement for them to demonstrate that they have necessarily been subject to a longer term in prison under the new laws. There is no ground upon which to conclude that the authors have suffered an increased punishment or sanction as a result of the legislative amendments. The jurisprudence of the Committee indicates its general reluctance to engage in speculative exercises in an attempt to divine whether a person’s position may have been more advantageous under previously applicable legislation. Consistent with that jurisprudence, it is not the function of the Committee in the present communication to make a hypothetical assessment of whether or not the authors might have been released earlier if the legislative amendments had not taken place. Claims under article 24, paragraph 1 4.27 The State party has a wide range of legislative and other measures in place to ensure that children are protected by their families, society and the State. That includes measures to ensure that the criminal justice system affords appropriate protection to juveniles, such as special procedures regarding pretrial detention, trial and imprisonment. In the present case, the authors commenced their term of imprisonment in a juvenile institution and were transferred to adult institutions after attaining 18 years of age. Their youth and the importance of their rehabilitation was a primary consideration in their sentencing. The authors do not claim that the New South Wales criminal justice system contained any deficiencies which resulted in a failure to protect their rights throughout their pretrial 12 12 Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW), section 13A, subsequently repealed.