CCPR/C/112/D/1968/2010 recommendation” to include “any such recommendation, observation or expression of opinion that (before, on or after the date of assent to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Act 2005) has been quashed, set aside or called into question”. Those amendments deprived any successful appeal of relevance. The trial judge’s comment in obiter would remain the legislative trigger for punitive consequences, even if quashed by a superior court. 5.10 Thirdly, the trial judge’s comment that the authors should never be released has been ex post facto transformed into the criterion on which the authors (and a handful of other named prisoners) are treated much more punitively than all other persons given life sentences in New South Wales and much more punitively than they would have been under the laws in force at the time of their offence. This is so, despite the fact that the comment: (a) was criticized by superior courts; (b) cannot be appealed or challenged; (c) was made without any statutory basis; (d) was made at a time when it was of no legal consequence; (e) was made by a judge who could not have known the strict legal consequences that would flow from it; and (f) was made without the opportunity for the authors to make submissions on the issue. 5.11 Fourthly, the situation of the authors is quite analogous to that of a person subject to a retrospective increase in the prescribed minimum sentence. A retrospective increase in the minimum sentence is unequivocally a breach of article 15 of the Covenant. A minimum sentence sets the date before which the person subject to it cannot seek release. At the time of sentence, the authors could seek a determination of the sentence after eight years. They must now wait at least 30 years. In theory, their sentence may have been redetermined to provide for the earliest possible release date. It is impossible to know, much the same as it is impossible to know whether a person subject to a retrospective increase in their minimum sentence would have been released immediately upon serving their initial minimum term. The situations are analogous and should be treated as such. Claims under article 24, paragraph 1 5.12 The authors argue that they do not rely on the text of the Convention on the Rights of the Child being wholly transplanted into the provisions of the Covenant. Rather, the Convention plays an important role in interpreting the scope of obligation in article 24, paragraph 1, as do customary international law and the Beijing Rules. The rights in the Convention also inform the scope of articles 10 and 7 of the Covenant. Articles 37 (a) and (b) and 40, paragraph 1, of the Convention are particularly relevant in that respect. Human rights instruments should be construed in a way that is interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the statement of the State party that it does not challenge the admissibility of the communication. The Committee considers that all admissibility criteria have been met, declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. 15