Australian Human Rights Commission Information for LOIPR - Australia, 27 June 2016 9.3 Offshore processing of asylum claims Concluding Observations, para 17 Relevant provisions of the CAT: Articles 1, 2, 4, 10, 11 and 16 79. The Commission remains concerned about several aspects of third country processing arrangements in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, which engage Australia’s obligations under the CAT. 80. The Commission is concerned that the pre-transfer assessment process conducted before a person is transferred to Nauru or Papua New Guinea (either immediately after arrival or after being temporarily brought to Australia for medical treatment) does not allow for an adequate assessment of issues. For example: • The Commission is aware of several cases in which same-sex attracted people have been removed to Nauru and Papua New Guinea, despite the fact that both countries criminalised same-sex sexual activity at the time.68 • The pre-transfer assessment process does not take into account whether a person is suffering from a mental illness or is a survivor of torture and trauma, creating a risk that they could be transferred to an environment which would further compromise their health and wellbeing. 81. The Commission welcomes the introduction of ‘open centre’ arrangements for asylum seekers in both countries. However, numerous reports and inquiries as well as the Commission’s own research have repeatedly documented serious shortcomings in living conditions for people subject to third country processing.69 Available evidence suggests that there has been limited improvement in these conditions over time.70 The Commission is particularly concerned by reports of physical and sexual assault and other forms of abuse and exploitation involving people subject to third country processing. 82. The combination of (until recently) prolonged indefinite detention, delays in the processing of asylum claims, difficult living conditions, concerns about physical safety, and uncertainty about the future has reportedly had a profoundly negative impact on the mental health outcomes of people subject to third country processing. For example, interviews and assessments conducted by the Commission in November 2015 with children and families who had been subject to third country processing in Nauru revealed high levels of trauma and developmental risk amongst these children.71 83. The Commission again notes with concern that there is still no monitoring body for third country processing arrangements with all of the key features necessary to be fully effective: independence from the governments involved; adequate funding to fulfil the role; the capacity to maintain an ongoing or regular presence at immigration detention facilities; a specific statutory power to enter immigration detention facilities; comprehensive public reporting for transparency; and the capacity to require a public response from government. 16