INTRODUCTION
Since 2012, the governments of Australia and the Republic of Nauru have operated under a Memorandum of Understanding that allows Australia to transfer refugees who arrive in the country to the island of Nauru for processing in the Regional Processing Centre (OHCHR, 2025). Due to this agreement, hundreds of refugees have been transferred to the island, and numerous human rights concerns have emerged regarding the treatment of refugees.
Several non-governmental organisations have expressed that this policy of deporting individuals to Nauru violates the human rights of these refugees as it constitutes arbitrary detention. Amnesty International Australia (2025) described the policy as a “blatant attack on the human rights of people seeking protection”.
CURRENT ISSUES
Early this year, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) ruled in two landmark decisions that Australia is responsible for the arbitrary detention of the 25 asylum seekers who were brought to the Republic of Nauru’s Regional Processing Centre (Rummery, 2025). Both these cases emphasise the responsibility of states to uphold their international obligations to protect the rights of refugees.
2.1 The Case of M.I. et al. v. Australia
One of the two landmark decisions published by the UNHRC regarding this issue is the case of M.I. et al. v. Australia (2025). The case involved asylum seekers who were minors at the time and came from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar. They fled to Australia to escape persecution in their home countries. The refugees alleged that their rights were violated under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) when they were forcibly detained and transferred to the island of Nauru, where they were held in unacceptable living conditions. The climate of the island was warm; they lived only in vinyl tents, and there were no adequate provisions for water, sanitation, clothing, footwear, or protection from the humidity. Given the dire living conditions, they reported suffering from both physical and mental health problems while inside the detention centre.
Aside from the poor treatment they received in the facility, the asylum seekers found that they could not challenge the legality of their forcible transfer to Nauru before the courts in Australia since the ICCPR has not been incorporated into domestic law. Thus, they argued that Australia should be held responsible for the treatment they received in the Nauru Regional Processing Centre. In deciding the case, the Committee ruled that Australia violated Article 9(1) of the ICCPR, which states that:
- Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
The Committee found that Australia arranged and financed the construction of the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, which meant that Australia effectively controls or has jurisdiction over the detention centre. As a result, Australia was found to be responsible and ordered to provide full reparations and adequate compensation. Additionally, it must take necessary steps to review its migration policies and prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.
2.2 The case of Nabhari v. Australia
Another similar case involved Mona Nabhari, a national of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who alleged that Australia violated her rights under the ICCPR. In 2013, Ms. Nabhari arrived in Christmas Island with her family without authorisation, so authorities subsequently detained them. Later, they were transferred to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre as refugees. While she was there, she suffered health problems, so she was eventually transferred to a detention facility in mainland Australia to receive medical treatment.
However, she alleged that since her detention in Nauru, she had been experiencing various physical and psychological health concerns, and even stated that “she feels ready to die because she has no rights and doesn’t feel human anymore”. She argued that her detention for more than six years was neither lawful nor reasonable, and that Australia should be held responsible for her unlawful detention.
Similar to the previous case, the Committee ruled Ms. Nabhari’s detention was within Australia’s jurisdiction, by virtue of a bilateral agreement between Australia and Nauru for the latter to host detainees. Given that Australia effectively managed and funded the operations of the detention facility, this means that Ms. Nabhari’s period of detention was likewise under Australia’s jurisdiction. In this particular case, the Committee also found Australia to have arbitrarily detained and violated the rights of Ms. Nabhari under Article 9(1) of the ICCPR, and thus, reparations and adequate compensation were required for the violation.
In support of the above decisions, Committee member Mahjoub El Haiba emphasised the following:
[a] State party cannot escape its human rights responsibility when outsourcing asylum processing to another State … [w]here a State exercises effective control over an area, its obligations under international law remain firmly in place and cannot be transferred (Rummery, 2025).
Based on the above rulings of the Committee, these issues also showcase the position of the UNHCR in upholding the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers, and in being responsible for violations committed under the ICCPR.
2.3 Other cases of human rights issues
A refugee named Maria recounted her experiences in the detention centre, calling it a dehumanising experience for being treated like a prisoner, and even sharing that public sexual harassment was common. Inappropriate relationships between guards and female detainees were reported (Ritchie, 2023). Another refugee named Aarash shared that he felt “less human” and that he “lost his youth to offshore processing” when he was in Nauru (Doherty, 2025).
Aside from the treatment suffered by asylum seekers on the island, another pressing concern is the state of press freedom in the country. A report published regarding the state of the media in Nauru found that all journalists in the country are employees of the Nauru Media Board, which means that they are essentially government employees (ABC International Development, 2025). Moreover, foreign journalists who try to enter the country need to pay a hefty visa application fee, which is non-refundable, but are being denied visas for media-related work in Nauru, making it hard for them to investigate and report on human rights issues in the country (ABC International Development, 2025).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
While there has been a move to reduce the number of asylum seekers in Nauru, some individuals are still being detained at the regional processing centre. Last February 2025, the government of Australia reached another agreement with the government of Nauru for the latter to receive asylum seekers deported from Australia.
However, following the ruling of the UNHRC, Amnesty International urged the Australian government to evacuate individuals currently detained in the island, calling their detention a violation of their human rights, and stating that “[o]ffshore detention is a policy characterised by sheer cruelty, a dead end that has caused irreparable harm to countless people seeking safety” (Amnesty International, 2025).
As of April 2025, the centre holds around 93 individuals, with four people given refugee status, while 89 are currently undergoing appeals (Radio New Zealand, 2025). According to the President of Nauru, David Adeang, the country had already finalised an agreement with Australia for long-term funding for the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru to hold asylum seekers awaiting their appeals. He also stated that Nauru plans to revise its Refugee Status Determination (RSD) process in order to expedite initial assessments, so refugees will not be detained for too long (Radio New Zealand, 2025).
CONCLUSION
The current issue surrounding the Nauru Regional Processing Centre highlights the continued struggles of asylum seekers and refugees who continue to face detention and discrimination despite seeking protection. Although the UN Human Rights Committee has ruled that Australia is responsible, the Australian government’s response and commitment to rectifying these violations remain uncertain.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABC International Development. (2025, March 4). State of the Media: Nauru, 2025. ABC International Development. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.abc.net.au/abc-international-development/state-of-the-media-nauru-2025/105005276.
Amnesty International. (2025, February 18). Labor’s secret Nauru deal: A concerning precedent for back-door deportations. Amnesty International Australia. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.amnesty.org.au/labors-secret-nauru-deal-a-concerning-precedent-for-back-door-deportations/.
Civicus Monitor. (2025, June 9). Nauru: New deal to detain asylum seekers while press freedom remains curtailed – Civicus Monitor. Civicus Monitor. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/nauru-new-deal-to-detain-asylum-seekers-while-press-freedom-remains-curtailed/.
Doherty, B. (2025, January 10). “I felt less human, not human at all”: Australia faces moral crossroads over Nauru. The Guardian. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jan/11/i-felt-less-human-not-human-at-all-australia-faces-moral-crossroads-over-nauru.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) art 9(1).
M.I. et al. v Australia, CCPR/C/142/D/2749/2016, UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), 31 October 2024. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/hrc/2024/en/149345.
Nabhari v. Australia, CCPR/C/142/D/3663/2019, UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), 25 October 2024. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/hrc/2024/en/149344.
Radio New Zealand. (2025, April 27). Nauru and Australia finalise long-term funding for refugee processing. RNZ. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/559238/nauru-and-australia-finalise-long-term-funding-for-refugee-processing.
Refugee Council of Australia. (2019, June 6). Offshore processing statistics and Operation Sovereign Borders. Refugee Council of Australia; Refugee Council of Australia. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/2/.
Ritchie, H. (2023, July 2). Nauru: Why Australia is funding an empty detention centre. BBC News. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66027565.
Rummery, A. (2025, January 16). UN ruling on Australia’s responsibility for people transferred to Nauru | UNHCR Asia Pacific. UNHCR Asia Pacific. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.unhcr.org/asia/news/press-releases/un-ruling-australia-s-responsibility-people-transferred-nauru.United Nations. (2025, January 9). Australia responsible for arbitrary detention of asylum seekers in offshore facilities, UN Human Rights Committee finds. OHCHR. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/01/australia-responsible-arbitrary-detention-asylum-seekers-offshore-facilities.