CCPR/C/115/D/2005/2010 4.9 Transfer agreements play an important role for humanitarian and other legitimate purposes, allowing persons who have been convicted abroad and agree to the transfer to come back to their own country to serve their sentence and benefit from, for instance, closer contact with their family. Under the Covenant, however, States parties cannot be bound to execute a sentence when there is ample evidence that it was handed down following proceedings in which the defendant’s rights were clearly violated. In the Committee’s view, giving effect, under a transfer agreement, to sentences resulting from a flagrant denial of justice constitutes a disproportionate restriction of the right to liberty, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. The fact that, as a condition for his return, the individual in question accepted the conditions of the agreement is not decisive, given that it can be shown, in the present case, that the detention conditions and ill-treatment to which he was subjected left him little choice. In such circumstances, it was for the State party to ensure that the terms of the transfer arrangement did not cause it to violate the Covenant. 4.10 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State party not only made no attempt to negotiate the terms of the transfer arrangement in a manner compatible with its obligations under the Covenant but also exercised a significant degree of influence over the formulation of the plea agreement, upon which the author’s immediate return to Australia was contingent (see annex II below, paras. 108 and 109). The Committee also notes the State party’s contention that the author agreed to plead guilty because he perceived prison conditions in Australia to be more favourable (see annex II below, para. 109). However, the Committee considers that, in order to escape the violations to which he was subjected, the author had no other choice than to accept the terms of the plea agreement that was put to him. It was therefore incumbent on the State party to show that it had done everything possible to ensure that the terms of the transfer arrangement that had been negotiated with the United States did not cause it to violate the Covenant, particularly as the author was one of its nationals. In the absence of such a showing, the Committee considers that, by accepting to give effect to the remainder of the sentence imposed under the plea agreement and deprive the author of his liberty for seven months, the State party violated the author’s rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 5. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 6. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the particular circumstances of the present case, in which the State party’s actions were intended to benefit the author and did, in fact, mitigate the harm he would have suffered had he continued to be kept in the custody of the United States, the Committee considers that the finding of a violation constitutes appropriate reparation in the form of satisfaction. The State party is under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. 7. The State party is requested to publish the present Views and disseminate them widely in the State party. 8