CCPR/C/112/D/1968/2010 setting a non-parole period, following which, the New South Wales State Parole Authority could only release the authors on parole if, among other requirements, they are either in “imminent danger of dying”, or “incapacitated to the extent that they no longer have the physical ability to do harm to any person”. Those requirements apply irrespective of the author’s conduct and progress at rehabilitation. If the authors are unsuccessful in their application for a determination, then no non-parole period will be set and the authors will remain in prison until death. 2.9 In 1992, the authors appealed their conviction for murder and sought leave to appeal against their sentences before the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, pursuant to section 5 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 of New South Wales (first appeal). Mr. Blessington abandoned his appeal against conviction part-way through the hearing and Mr. Elliott’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. Leave to appeal against their sentence was granted, but their appeals were unanimously dismissed. The Court held that the imposition of life sentences was within the range of statutory discretion and was appropriate to the facts of the case and the circumstances of the authors. 2.10 Chief Justice Gleeson, who delivered the appeal judgement, observed that: “no error of fact or principle has been shown in relation to Newman J’s remarks on sentences, and the sentences cannot be characterised as manifestly excessive. Under the relevant legislation, the appellants will have a right, after a lapse of a certain period of time, to apply to a Judge of this Court to change the indeterminate sentences to determinate sentences. A decision in that regard can then be made in light of all the relevant factors, including the custodial history of the appellants up to the date of the application”. Justice Gleeson also observed that because of their young age at the time of their offences, the authors should not have had their files marked “never to be released”. He stated that “especially where the offender is a young person and there are so many different possibilities as to what might happen in the future, it is normally not appropriate for a sentencing judge to seek to anticipate decisions that might fall to be made by other persons, and in other proceedings, or under other legislation, over the ensuing decades. For that reason, I should indicate that I do not support the recommendation made by Newman J.” 2.11 In 2006, the authors sought leave to reopen their first appeal and to appeal against the recommendation made by the trial judge in 1990. Alternatively, they asked the Court to quash the life sentence and impose a determinate sentence. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 30 March 2006 and the judgement was handed down on 22 September 2006. The Court refused the leave to appeal. It held that, although the recommendation had had no legal effect at the time it was made, the legislative changes introduced afterwards gave it practical and legal effect. 2.12 The authors appealed against that decision to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on 8 November 2007. The High Court did, however, note that the significant number of legislative changes that occurred between 1992 and 2006 were “striking and unusual”. No further legal appeal is possible and therefore the authors contend that they have exhausted domestic remedies. 2.13 The authors state that, while in prison, they have expressed remorse for the death of Ms. J.B. and accepted responsibility for their role in the crimes. The complaint 3.1 The authors submit that the facts described constitute a violation of articles 24, paragraph 1, 10, 7, and 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 5