The author of the communication, initially dated 8 June 2003, is Yo Han Chung, a Korean citizen born in 1971, who immigrated to Australia3 with his family in 1990. He claims to be a victim of violations by Australia of articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). He is not represented by counsel.
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force for the State party on 13 November 1980 and its Optional Protocol on 25 December 1991. ↩
Factual background
The author enrolled in a Bachelor of Applied Science (Physiotherapy) course at the University of Sydney in 1993. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with anxiety and major depression.
In 1999, as the author was encountering difficulties in the course, several meetings took place between him and University authorities to design a programme and workload adapted to his mental health and anxiety. However, he failed a few subjects, and complained about the grades to various authorities, and requested to have access to his exam papers. By letter of 6 March 2000, the author was informed that he had been excluded from the course of Physiotherapy for a period of two years, for failure to show good cause why he should be allowed to re-enrol in the course.
On 4 September 2000, the author filed a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission claiming that the University, in excluding him, had discriminated against him on the grounds of race and disability. The author’s complaint was terminated on 20 March 2001 for lack of substance.
On 10 April 2001, the author brought proceedings under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 with respect to complaints of race and disability discrimination, before the Federal Court of Australia. The matter was transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court, which summarily dismissed the claim on 20 September 2001, on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
On 3 October 2001, the author requested leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court but it was denied on 21 February 2002. A request for special leave to appeal to the High Court was denied on 5 November 2002.
Consideration of admissibility
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
The Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25 and 26 of the Covenant either fall outside of the scope of those provisions or have not been substantiated, for purposes of admissibility. Consequently, the author’s claims are inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Accordingly, the Committee decides: That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol;