New Zealand Human Rights Commission Submission to the CAT in relation to NZ’s 6th periodic review Government commit to reviewing all legislation relating to detainees within the next reporting period to ensure that it fully complies with New Zealand’s international obligations. Reservation to article 14 20. On ratifying the CAT New Zealand entered a reservation to article 14:7 The Government of New Zealand reserves the right to award compensation to torture victims referred to in article 14 of the Convention against Torture only at the discretion of the Attorney-General of New Zealand. 21. When New Zealand entered that reservation in 1989, the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BORA”) did not exist. Section 9 of BORA provides that:8 Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment. 22. Despite there being no remedies clause in BORA the courts have found that a person can seek compensation in respect of a violation of rights guaranteed by BORA.9 The Law Commission has stated that there should be no legislative interference with the availability and development of BORA compensation jurisprudence.10 23. However, as noted above, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 significantly restricts the circumstances in which courts are able to make compensation awards to prisoners for violation of their rights as set out in BORA. In 2013 the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Act was passed, continuing the application of the 2005 Act – which would otherwise have expired. 7 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Handbook on International Human Rights, Wellington (2008) at 179. 8 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s9. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html 9 See for example: Simpson v Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667; Dunlea v Attorney-General [2000] 3 NZLR 136; Upton v Green & Anor (No 2) (1996) 3 HRNZ 179. 10 New Zealand Law Commission, Crown Liability and Judicial Immunity: A Response to Baigent’s Case and Harvey v Derrick, NZLC R37. 11