A 27-year-old Iranian refugee named Mona Nabhari arrived in Australia by boat without an entry visa in August 2013. Ms Nabhari and her husband, stepfather, stepsister (then a child) and a cousin arrived on Christmas Island, which is an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean, 1,500km west of the Australian mainland. They were detained on the island.

The year prior, Australia came to an arrangement with the Pacific island nation of Nauru to send people seeking asylum in Australia to be detained there and have their refugee claims assessed by Nauru (a recent party to the Refugees Convention).

After nearly 7 months detained on Christmas Island, Australia sent Ms Nabhari and her husband to Nauru. Nauruan authorities took 3 further years to determine their refugee status, recognising them as refugees in April 2017. Even so, they remained in detention on Nauru for over a year more, during which time Ms Nabhari self-harmed.

In November 2018, they were evacuated from Nauru on medical grounds, and put in detention on mainland Australia, despite being recognised refugees.

In early 2019, Ms Nabhari’s stepfather and stepsister were also transferred to Australia for medical reasons, but to a different city. In May 2019 (after two months’ separation, according to Australia; para. 4.10), Ms Nabhari and her husband were moved to the same city as her stepfather and stepsister, but remained in detention. (The location of Ms Nabhari’s cousin is not recorded.) Ms Nabhari claimed violations of her rights to family under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant, but the Human Rights Committee found these claims insufficiently substantiated and did not find violations of these provisions (para. 7.4).

Interim measures

On 9 October 2019, as part of her individual communication to the UN Human Rights Committee, Ms Nabhari asked the Committee to take interim measures. The Committee complied on 25 October 2019, asking Australia to immediately release Ms Nabhari and her husband. On 29 October, the Australian Minister for Immigration intervened to have them released, which took effect on 4 November.

Her petition to the UN covers over 6 years, from August 2013 to November 2019 (excluding 3 months in which they were not detained, while on Nauru; para. 7.17).

In response to the communication, Australia argued that events occurring on Nauru were outside its jurisdiction. The Committee, looking at a range of factors, did not accept this claim (paras 4.3 & 7.6-7.15).

Australia argued Ms Nabhari could have sought review of her detention by the High Court of Australia or filed a writ of habeas corpus (para. 4.9). The Committee did not accept that either of those remedies was available to the author while she was in Nauru, besides which, the High Court decision in Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) established that indefinite detention of refugees was lawful in Australia. The possibility that the court might one day overrule its own precedent does not make the High Court an effective remedy for immigration detainees. The Committee cited its previous jurisprudence, noting “there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies if they have no chance of being successful” (para. 7.3).

The Final Views of the Committee and the individual view of a Committee member making various important observations about Australia’s human rights obligations and treatment of people seeking asylum:

The sole, undisputed reason for Ms Nabhari’s detention was her unauthorised entry into Australia by boat (para. 8.5). Australian migration law does not require individualised reasons for ongoing detention of people seeking asylum (para. 8.6) and provides no effective means for such a person to challenge their detention (para. 8.7).

The Committee concluded that the author’s detention in both Australia and Nauru was unreasonable, unnecessary, disproportionate and arbitrary, and a breach of Article 9(1). Arbitrary detention is a gross violation of human rights.

The individual opinion by one member of the Committee addresses “a cynical and concerning trend” in migration policy of “externalising borders” and “offshoring” refugee protection (paras 1 & 6). The Committee’s Final Views should send a “clear message” to all nations party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: they can be responsible for human rights violations that occur outside their territory if they forcibly transfer people seeking asylum to other countries with inadequate ‘systems, standards and resources’ (para. 6).

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) called it a “landmark decision” for holding Australia responsible for the rights of people it transfers abroad, “consistent with UNHCR’s long-held position.” The UNHCR "stands ready to work with the Government of Australia to help it uphold its international obligations under the ICCPR as well as the Refugee Convention.

Australia’s response

In October 2025, Australia responded to the Committee’s Views (exceeding the 180-day deadline) by restating its arguments in defence of its treatment of Ms Nabhari. Australia rejected the Committee’s main conclusions. Australia argued that no human rights violations had occurred, yet also that it is not responsible for events “on foreign soil”. It therefore refused to compensate Ms Nabhari or alter its migration legislation or policies.

According to Amnesty International, the number of people seeking asylum who Australia had transferred to Nauru grew to over 100, as at January 2025.