CCPR/C/112/D/1968/2010 impact disproportionately on children relative to adults. A life sentence with only the remote, technical possibility of release is cruel and inhumane for precisely the same reasons. The authors’ remote chances of release on their deathbeds, in the event of serious physical incapacity, or upon the discretionary exercise of a scarcely exercised executive power, does not render humane what would otherwise be cruel and inhuman. Claims under article 10, paragraph 3 5.6 The authors reiterate that their lifelong incarceration is in violation of article 10, paragraph 3. A rehabilitative process has release and reintegration as its destination or end point. Hence, they are not on a rehabilitative path towards release because they will never be released (unless terminally ill or severely physically incapacitated). The sentencing law reforms complained of deprive the treatment of the authors of any rehabilitative character. Their incarceration serves only punitive ends. Claims under article 15, paragraph 1 5.7 In the interest of purposive interpretation and giving practical content to the protection in article 15, the Committee should evaluate the true nature, effect and intent of the retrospective legislative changes cementing the authors in their cells. Whether the laws are retrospectively punitive should be a question of substance and intent, not form. The legislative changes complained of violate the letter and spirit of the protection against retrospective criminal punishment for the following reasons. 5.8 First, at the time of the offence and sentence, the authors had prospects for release that were realistic and would be regularly considered. In particular, the authors were able to apply for a determination of their life sentence after serving eight years in prison. While it is not possible to predict when the authors would have been released under the regime applicable at the time it is clear that the authors had a realistic chance of release within their natural lives. The mean time served by persons subject to life sentences in New South Wales between 1981 and 1989 before release on license was 11.7 years. 5.9 Secondly, there is no doubt that the legislature of New South Wales mounted a concerted campaign over several years to remove any meaningful prospect for the release of the authors. The then Premier of New South Wales made statements in Parliament and to the media that the laws aimed to ensure that the authors would never be released from custody. Further, the Government of New South Wales has repeatedly acted to extinguish any prospect for the release of the authors whenever it has become apparent that existing legislation fails to do so. For instance, in 1996, eight years after beginning his sentence, Mr. Blessington sought a redetermination. The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that he was not affected by the new, more punitive sentencing laws targeted at him because his application was already on foot at the time of their commencement. 14 The Court suggested that given the legal consequences that now flowed from the trial judge’s comment that he should never be released, that comment could be challenged in the superior courts as manifestly excessive when made in respect of 14 and 16-year-old children. Alternatively, the challenge could be based on the fact that the authors had been denied any real opportunity to make submissions on the comment, because it was uttered at a time when it was of no legal consequence. In response to that judgement, the Government of New South Wales promptly passed further reforms making it clear that the laws applied to any applications already on foot. The sole consequence of that further amendment was to delay the consideration of Mr. Blessington’s application for a determination of his sentence for over two decades. Reforms were also passed amending the definition of “non-release 14 14 R v. Bronson Mathew Blessington, 2005.