assistance when a person refuses to accept work not corresponding to his or her qualifications does not … represent a violation [of article 8]; in this case, neither the intensity of the involuntariness nor that of the sanction reaches the degree required for forced or compulsory labour.” Professor Nowak’s common-sense assessment is faithful to the purposes of article 8. On the uncontested facts of this case, I would dismiss the author’s claim of “forced or compulsory labour” as inadmissible for lack of substantiation. So, too, after the author’s unexcused absences from her employment placement resulted in a loss of benefits, she declined to pursue any appeal of the decision beyond a first-level review, even though she was “notified on numerous occasions as to her appeal rights.” See id., paragraph 4.3. It is true that the author did seek early intervention by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, after failing to show up for three scheduled interviews at Mission Australia, and suffering an 18 per cent reduction in her benefits. See id., paragraphs 2.2–2.3. In a decision on 12 June 1991, the Australian human rights commission concluded that its jurisdiction was limited to the discretionary decisions of Government personnel, rather than the review of statutory mandates. But the Australian human rights commissioners also observed on the merits that “reducing or cancelling unemployment assistance because a person does not want to participate in the Work for the Dole programme does not constitute forced or compulsory labour, as the nature of the punishment and the degree of involuntariness does not reach the threshold required to breach article 8 (3) (a) of the Covenant.” The author did not apply for judicial review of the Commission’s decision.11 The author has also failed to exhaust administrative and judicial remedies. In her complaint, the author challenges the “Work for Dole” programme because, inter alia, her work assignments were not “suitable” (e.g., she was required to learn how to apply “concrete” in a community project) and did not amount to training for a “specific vocation.” See Views of the Committee, paragraphs 4.17 and 5.1 supra. Thus, she says, her assignments cannot be characterized as apprenticeship or vocational training that might escape the opprobrium of “forced labour.” But the author did not challenge the “suitability” of her assignments through the framework of administrative and judicial remedies available in Australia for a “Work for Dole” participant. A beneficiary is apparently entitled to challenge a particular work assignment, or dispute its use as a “general activity test” for the continued receipt of benefits. See id., paragraphs 4.2–4.4, supra. The appeals include review by a specialist officer, and remedies in the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, federal courts and High Court. By virtue of these facts, it is difficult to conclude that the author has exhausted her domestic remedies. Nor has she established that the State party failed to provide an effective remedy as required by article 2 for an “arguable” violation of Covenant rights. 11 In Baban et al. v. Australia, communication No. 1014/2001, Views adopted on 6 August 2003, this member offered the view that the Committee “should not presume what the courts of the State party might decide in a particular case. A court’s interpretation of parliamentary intent may be informed by Covenant norms, and the permissible inference that parliament would have wished to comply with the State party’s treaty obligations.” See also Young v. Australia, case No. 941/2000, Views adopted on 6 August 2003 (concurring opinion of R. Wedgwood). 75