CCPR/C/112/D/1968/2010 to the Beijing Rules recognizes that retribution may be a permissible aim in sentencing juveniles in respect of severe offences. 8 In addition, in light of the extremely serious nature of the authors’ crimes, their sentences are not inconsistent with the principles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Beijing Rules that maintain that the imprisonment of minors should only be a measure of last resort and endure for the minimum period necessary.9 4.20 The State party adheres firmly to the principle in article 10, paragraph 3, of the Covenant that the essential aims of incarceration are both to reform and to rehabilitate criminal offenders so that they can resume their role as members of society. However, apart from those essential aims, incarceration also serves to protect the community from offenders with violent tendencies and to punish serious wrongdoing, with a view not only to reformation of the individual but also to deterring those who would commit similar crimes. Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prevent Governments and courts from imposing penalties that aim at adequate punishment, community protection and deterrence, as they see fit in appropriate circumstances. Claims under article 15, paragraph 1 4.21 The legislative amendments regarding eligibility for parole (including the setting of a non-parole period) affecting the authors are not a “penalty” for the purposes of article 15 of the Covenant, since those amendments did not affect the punishment at law applicable to their offences, which was life imprisonment. The authors cannot demonstrate that the currently applicable regime necessarily results in them spending longer in prison than the original regime, and thus that they are subject to a “heavier” penalty in their present circumstances. 4.22 The State party observes that in previous jurisprudence the Committee has not made a final determination on the scope of the term “penalty” in article 15, a task which the Committee described in Van Duzen v. Canada as raising “complex issues”.10 The difficulty arises because parole does not form part of the “penalty” or sanction imposed by law, but is by nature a discretionary and flexible component of the way in which the sentence is served. The word “penalty” in article 15, paragraph 1, refers to the punishment or sanction at law for an offence at the time of its commission. The second sentence of that paragraph applies to situations where a person has suffered an increase in the punishment that can be imposed by a court according to the law (relative to the position at the time of the offence). Changes to eligibility for the fixing of a non-parole period or release on parole do not reduce the punishment or sanction at law. Parole is a procedural aspect of the sentence dictating how it will be served. It concerns the means of administration of the penalty imposed at sentencing, which can result in part of the sentence being served in the community on certain conditions, rather than in custody. Release on parole in Australia is not automatic and is not an entitlement or benefit accruing to a prisoner. 4.23 The legislation applicable at the time of the offences would have permitted the authors to apply to the Executive for release on licence. 11 The legislation applicable at the time they were sentenced would have permitted them to apply to the Supreme Court of 8 9 10 11 According to the Commentary on Rule 17 “Whereas in adult cases, and possibly also in cases of severe offences by juveniles, just desert and retributive sanctions might be considered to have some merit, in juvenile cases such considerations should always be outweighed by the interest of safeguarding the well-being and the future of the young person.” Article 37 (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and rule 19 of the Beijing Rules. Communication 50/1979, Van Duzen v. Canada, Views adopted on 7 April 1982, paragraph 10.3. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), section 463 (1), subsequently repealed. 11