2008045 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 1386
•25 February 2025
2008045 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1386 (25 FEBRUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2008045
Tribunal:Senior Member D. Dragovic
Date:25 February 2025
Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Senior Member D. Dragovic
Statement made on 25 February 2025 at 12:30 PM CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Jordan – fears harm for reasons of his debt – social media posts – membership of a particular social group – individuals who have broken the law having failed to pay their debts – debtor’s imprisonment is a non-discriminatory law – applicant has a child who would be unable to travel to Jordan – Australian citizen child – applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm – specific circumstances the applicant faces amount to a significant threat to his personal security, human right and human dignity – referral to the Minister – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 351, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 5 May 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a national of Jordan. He applied for the visa on 13 April 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa and the applicant appealed to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Administrative Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on 12 November 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant spoke fluent English and as such was not supported by an interpreter.
The applicant was not represented. Noting the nuanced complexities of the case, on 3 December 2024 the Tribunal sent to the applicant a letter informing him of the availability of free legal assistance expressly explaining that the Senior Member hearing the matter recommended that he reach out to those identified as providing such support.
The Tribunal does not have information as to whether the applicant reached out to any legal provider and sought help, but was rejected, or that he did not make contact. Substantial time was provided for the applicant to pursue this option.
The Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further consideration of representation.
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant is a [age]-year-old male from Amman, Jordan. He married in 2010 and separated in 2016 or 2017. Between them they had a child. The wife and child have been granted a protection visa and in 2023 became permanent residents of Australia.
Both provided letters of support. The wife wrote in her letter that the applicant plays a role in his daughter’s life and having him around is important as they have no other family in Australia. The daughter wrote about the activities the applicant and her do together.
The applicant’s siblings and mother moved to [a country]. The applicant’s father has passed away.
While living in Jordan the applicant was a [Occupation 1] who subsequently went into partnership with another man and managed a [business] in Amman. The applicant described the early years from 2009 as being good, earning about $1,500 per month, but after the war in Syria started, that it deteriorated and eventually in 2014 he sold it.
The applicant claims that he was arrested in 2012 by Jordanian police and detained for a few days. He claims that his business partner’s brother worked for Jordanian intelligence, and he along with his colleagues would come and have coffee in the café. He recalled being arrested after having a conversation with his business partner and the intelligence friends, during which he asked why the police take bribes. He believes that one of the intelligence people at the coffee discussion told the Preventive Security Unit who came and arrested him two days later. They accused him of starting problems, took him to a temporary prison for one night, then sent him to a prison in the desert where he stayed for a second night.
He believes that he was released because of the intervention of his business partner and the business partner’s brother, a [senior official]. He claims that as he was released, he was told that their eyes were on him. If it happens again, he believes that he would disappear for years. As an example, he said that a cousin of his disappeared for three years for criticising the king.
The applicant believes that there is a record of this incident because he claims that the brother of the business partner told him so. The applicant noted that it was his second incident.
The first was also in 2012 when he was interviewed for one hour for reasons of a phone conversation that was tapped because of his phone interlocutor’s fraud case. In that instance he had to sign some documents about not starting anything and committing to not cause any problems. He said that once you sign a piece of paper, it goes on the record, you are flagged and, in his case, unfortunately, he came up on their radar a second time, being the coffee place incident.
Separately, the applicant claims that he has a large credit card debt. He claims that he owes USD20,000. He claimed that he wanted to make a repayment schedule with the bank but the offer they made, he believed he couldn’t meet. He claims that he called the Jordanian courts during the Corona virus period while living in Australia and found that a warrant for him had been dropped, but three months prior to the hearing when he called again, he learned of a new warrant. When asked about any documentary evidence of either, he said that he hasn’t been given anything and that is why he was unable to provide it to the Department or now to the Tribunal.
The applicant stated that he hasn’t repaid any of the debt since 2014. Although he had money saved which was enough such that the ‘debt would have been’ settled, when he came to Australia. He said that instead he had used that money to set up a [business] and establish himself in Australia.
When country information was put to him regarding standard sized bank loans and the type of income required to match the loan limits banks were offering[1], he said that his credit card was tied to his business and as such he was able to run up a larger debt than someone on a wage would be able to.
[1] >
At the hearing the Jordanian law pertaining to debt was discussed and in particular the penalty of imprisonment. The applicant suggested that imprisonment can recur endlessly meaning that he believes that any reference to time frames such as 90 days imprisonment for unpaid debts can be applied again and again if the money is not paid. I put to him that the country information suggests that is not the case. Furthermore, I noted that the law changed in 2022 reducing the maximum period of imprisonment per debt to 60 days per year.[2] I put to him that he has an opportunity to provide alternate country information supporting his claim in post hearing submissions. None were received.
[2] >
In correspondence following the hearing the Tribunal sent the applicant a letter with the following information:
The member hearing your matter has noted that the Jordan Times has reported that in May 2024 King Abdullah II issued a general pardon of crimes that appears to include financial crimes.
The article is available through this link: member notes that based on this information it appears that the conviction you fear arising from your debt, which may have led to imprisonment, will no longer lead you to face debtors imprisonment.
The applicant responded by way of email received 12 February 2025:
After conducting an extensive research on the general pardon that was issued in 2024 in Jordan I found out that when it comes to financial crimes there a maximum limit amount where the pardon doesn't apply and the limit is $10,000. Therefore I cannot be included in the general pardon unfortunately. I also made a telephone call to the judicial justice court and they have informed me that I still have a warrant of arrest.
The applicant was asked by follow up correspondence to provide evidence of the claimed $10,000 limit by 20 February 2025. He provided a link to an article that does not mention a $10,000 limit but it does indicate that the amnesty relates to state’s right to punish crimes and not personal rights to recoup a loan.[3]
[3] >
Following the hearing the applicant provided a series of links to videos from 1999 showing former Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, a 2008 report about torture and impunity in Jordan’s prisons[4], debt and imprisonment in Jordan[5], ties between Jordan and Israel and a Human Rights Watch annual report. He also provided a scan of a Washington Post article from 1977, which had a title visible as ‘CIA Paid Millions…King Husse’.
[4] >
In pre-hearing submissions, the applicant provided a link to an Al Jazeera article about COVID and news executives.[6] He explained at the hearing that it was to highlight that there is no free speech in Jordan.
[6] >
In addition to the above claims, through the hearing the applicant appeared to make claims that he had made [social media] posts critical of the King. I requested that screenshots of such posts be provided to the Tribunal.
The applicant provided a [social media] link which could not be accessed without logging into the application. Correspondence was sent subsequently dated 3 December 2024 requesting that he provide copies of the three [social media] posts he fears would most expose him to a risk of harm.
The applicant subsequently provided three [social media] posts and one [social media] screenshot:
a.The first was a [social media] post under the name of [Name 1], the applicant’s pseudonym, posting a 1999 [social media] video of what appears to be Ariel Sharon.
b.The second, again by [Name 1], is the posting of a Times of Israel article with the title, ‘Netanyahu and Abdullah meet in Jordan, signalling they want to move past tensions.’
c.The third is by [Name 1], linking to a BBC article, ‘Pandora Papers: King of Jordan amassed £70m secret property empire.’
d.The [social media] screenshot was of Israel President Herzog meeting King Abdullah in Amman.
The applicant has Palestinian roots. He has not claimed any direct harm arising from them, but he noted that it adds to his profile as there is animosity between Palestinians and the original Jordanians.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The applicant fears harm for reasons of his debt and his [social media] posts. That the applicant has been put on notice by the security forces due to past transgressions would, according to the applicant, amplify any risk and consequence of political harm he encounters as would his Palestinian roots.
In addition, I note that the applicant’s ex-wife obtained a protection visa for reasons of having a well-founded fear of returning to Jordan. The courts have identified psychological harm arising from a forced separation due to persecutory reasons, as the case is in this instance, being a necessary consideration.[7] As the applicant’s ex-wife cannot return to Jordan, I accept that the applicant’s daughter would not travel to Jordan without her mother.
[7] Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZQOT [2012] FCAFC 141 (12 October 2012)
In considering the applicant’s claims, I will first turn to the debt.
The applicant’s debt
I accept that the applicant has the debt that he has described and that he tried to arrange for a repayment scheme.
Country information about Jordan’s debt imprisonment laws include a 2023 report prepared by experts from Jordan’s Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development, a civil society organisation. The report grapples with the nuances of Jordanian laws pertaining to debt imprisonment. Key extracts from the report include:
According to Jordanian legislation, failing to repay debt is a reason for imprisonment. Jordanian legislation takes it further: the law considers unpaid checks a criminal matter and provides for prison penalties. As per the Jordanian Execution Law no. 25 of 2007 (amended in 2019), individuals who fail to repay their debts for whatever reason, including lack of income, can be sentenced to up to 90 days in prison per debt per year if a formal or informal creditor provides proof of a loan contract and a notice to the debtor in question.
Ninety days of imprisonment does not preclude the request to renew imprisonment (JEL Article 22C, 2007). If the debt is not paid off after ninety days, the creditor can request second imprisonment of the same unpaid debt after a year has passed.
However, under Defense Order No. (28) 2021 (March 28, 2021), imprisonment was postponed for debtors whose debts do not exceed JD 100,000 and people who have written checks without sufficient funds whose values do not exceed JD 100,000.
On January 31, 2023, Prime Minister Dr. Bishr Al-Khasawneh issued an official communication regarding the amendment of Defense Order No. (28) of 2021 and a further extension until April 30, 2023.
According to the amended Defense order, the value of debt that allows for postponing the implementation of the debtor’s imprisonment decisions issued under JEL and the penal code, has been reduced from JD 100,000 to JD 20,000. This means that just over 50 percent of current debtors can now face prison.
Nevertheless, the order that reduced the threshold to JD20,000 expired in April 2023.[8] As a result of the expiration the law reverted to its original form prior to the temporary COVID measures adjusting down the threshold for potential imprisonment to JD5,000.[9] In other words, any debts over JD5,000 would allow for the imprisonment of debtors.
[8] Also supported by another reporting source: and >
The reversion to the previous law was by way of an amendment known as the Execution Law 2021 approved by the House of Representatives in April 2022 that also set conditions for which imprisonment is not allowed ‘including if the person is bankrupt or insolvent, or has sufficient funds to repay the debt that the authorities can confiscate.’[10] These changes appear to have been ratified and in place by 2023.[11] A UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on Jordan supports a view that the law has changed stating: ‘HRW noted that authorities had suspended and later restricted the practice of debt imprisonment in response to the COVID-19.’[12]
[10] Human Rights Council: Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review; Forty-fifth session
It is relevant to note that most of the reporting on debtors’ imprisonment is from prior to the 2022 amendments to the Execution Law of 2021. For example, Human Rights Watch raised awareness of the law prior to the amendment: ‘The law does not make an exception for lack of income, or other factors that impede borrowers’ ability to repay, and the debt remains even after serving the sentence’.[13] It adds that an inability to repay is not an available defence. This same report suggests that the judiciary resorted to ‘imprisonment as a first option and without consideration of other remedies.’ But this appears to have changed following the April 2022 amendments.
[13] >
Then in May 2024 King Abdullah II passed a Royal Decree endorsing the General Pardon Law:
It provides amnesty for all criminal offenses, misdemeanours, violations and criminal acts committed before March 19, 2024, simply the criminality of the act ceases to exist. Except for the criminal acts explicitly mentioned and excluded from the law, all criminal claims and penalties related to those crimes are dropped, and cases covered by this law are exempt from fines and fees in their entirety.
Pursuant to Article 50/2 of the Jordanian Penal Code a general pardon erases the criminality of the act, hence, eliminating both the crime itself and its corresponding punishment. This entails that the offence, subsequent to the pardon, is deemed to have never occurred. This results in the erasure of all criminal consequences of the crime retroactively. As the General Pardon becomes part of the local legislation, the courts are bound to adhere and comply with its provision, pending charges before relevant courts will be dropped and dismissed, even an accused person cannot request to continue the case to prove his innocence as a pardon is akin to innocence in terms of its outcome.[14]
[14] type="1">
The above article goes on to list 38 categories of crimes that are exempt from the general pardon but does not include financial/debtor crimes. Furthermore, the article notes that the inclusion of financial crimes in the pardon created criticism as there was no provisions to make a settlement.
Another article notes that the pardon applies to criminal acts before 19 March 2024, which encapsulates the applicant’s circumstances.[15] The article notes that ‘Pardon law is not just another piece of legislation; it stands as a reflection of His Majesty’s values and aspirations for justice within the nation.’
[15] >
When this was put to the applicant, he wrote back as noted earlier that there is a $10,000 cap for the amnesty, without providing proof of this claim, and that he double checked about the warrant and claimed that it remains in place.
In considering the amnesty I accept that there is some confusion and uncertainty. The King has provided a general amnesty and it remains to be seen how the government implements it on a case-by-case basis. As referenced above, HRW reports that the Jordanian House of Representatives passed an amendment to the relevant law preventing imprisonment in the situation where the person is bankrupt or insolvent or has sufficient funds to repay the debt. While this appears to apply to the applicant, as he could be declared bankrupt, the issue of the arrest warrant weighs against a view that his case has been dismissed.
Arising from the evidence before me, I find that the applicant’s case does not fall under the amnesty. I find that the applicant’s debt remains a criminal matter for which the state will continue to pursue him in part because of the applicant’s claim that he has checked the status of the arrest warrant and in part because of the details in the country information reporting.
It could be that the Execution Law 2021 is not retrospective, or alternatively the arrest warrant will initiate a process but will not lead to imprisonment. Due to the vagaries of the situation with so much unknown and the application of the law being opaque, I give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept that he will be imprisoned once for 60 days.
In such an instance, once imprisoned the applicant will have his liberty deprived. Section 5J(5)(a) lists a threat ‘to the person’s life or liberty’ as an instance of serious harm.
Section 5L of the Act provides that a person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if a characteristic, other than a fear of persecution, is shared by each member of the group and the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, that characteristic. Further, that characteristic must be innate or immutable, or must be so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience that the member should not be forced to renounce it, or it must distinguish the group from society.
That the applicant will be found guilty and identified as a debtor marks him with an immutable characteristic which he shares with others within a particular social group comprising, ‘individuals who have broken the law having failed to pay their debts.’
I find that the essential and significant reason for the harm, in the form of a loss of liberty by way of a Jordanian law, is the applicant’s membership of this particular social group.
In Applicant A:
… the feared persecution must be discriminatory. … [It] must be “for reasons of” one of [the prescribed] categories. This qualification ... excludes persecution which is no more than punishment of a non-discriminatory kind for contravention of a criminal law of general application. Such laws are not discriminatory and punishment that is non-discriminatory cannot stamp the contravener with the mark of “refugee”.[16]
[16] Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225 at 233.
Put more simply, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection (UNHCR Handbook) states:
Persecution must be distinguished from punishment for a common law offence. Persons fleeing from prosecution or punishment for such an offence are not normally refugees. It should be recalled that a refugee is a victim - or potential victim - of injustice, not a fugitive from justice.[17]
[17] UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (UNHCR, re-issued February 2019) (Handbook) at [56].
I find that the application of debtor’s imprisonment is a non-discriminatory law. While Jordan is a signatory of the ICCPR and as such stands in breach to its own obligations there is no evidence that the law has been established for an ulterior motive such as to discriminatorily target certain groups. The evidence before me, particularly arising from the research undertaken by Human Rights Watch, indicates that the law is being used across all social groups, genders, and ethnicities.[18]
[18] HRW ‘We lost everything’
For this reason, were the applicant to be arrested at the airport and face incarceration, I find that such harm does not meet the threshold requirements of s 36(2)(a).
Complementary Protection and Lawful Sanction
With regards to Complementary Protection. I now turn my mind to consider whether the applicant’s incarceration would lead to the applicant meeting the criteria in s 36(2)(aa). Section 5(1) of the Migration Act defines the constituted acts of harm identified in s 36(2A) as constituting significant harm including torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment and degrading treatment or punishment explicitly exclude acts or omissions ‘arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.’ In doing so there needs to be evidence of intentionality to inflict harm upon the applicant as per SZTAL v MIBP.[19]
[19] SZTAL v MIBP (2016) 243 FCR 556 at [61]–[62]
Relevant to this consideration is Article 7 of the ICCPR:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
This is somewhat circular as the complementary protection guidelines were established, in part, from the ICCPR. Nevertheless, the question to be considered is whether the conditions in Jordanian prisons will amount to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
We discussed prison conditions in Jordan at the hearing. He said that his past experiences saw him not sleep for the two nights that he was incarcerated. In one of the two prisons he spent a night in, he said that it was overcrowded with no place to sleep. There were beds, but sometimes no mattresses. He described them as barracks with about 40 beds in a big area. I put to him that the evidence before me is that while tough, the conditions do not breach international human rights. He said that he couldn’t sleep and that was a breach of human rights. I allowed for the applicant to provide post-hearing submissions. No submissions on this issue were received.
The material that I relied upon for our discussions at the hearing are engaged with below.
The United States Department of State Human Rights Report 2023 for Jordan describes prison conditions as follows:
Conditions in the country’s 17 prisons varied. Some facilities had poor conditions like overcrowding and limited healthcare while newer prisons met international standards. Authorities held foreigners without legal employment or residency permits in the same facilities as citizens.
International NGOs and legal aid organizations identified problems including overcrowding, limited health care, inadequate legal assistance for inmates, and limited social care for inmates and their families.
Although basic medical care was available in all correctional facilities, medical staff complained of a lack of adequate medical equipment, supplies, and staff throughout the correctional system.
The PSD [Public Security Department] reported creating new courtrooms and performing renovations in several prison facilities to improve sanitary facilities, medical clinics, access to water, ventilation, and heating systems, and equipped facilities with fire safety equipment, outdoor lighting systems, and small-scale supermarkets for detainees. The PSD also established new accommodations for persons with disabilities, including upgraded healthcare facilities and units separated from the general population. The PSD opened new pharmacies in Aqaba and Mowaqqar correctional facilities.
Officials reported overcrowding at some prisons, especially those in and around Amman. According to the Ministry of Interior, 10,768 inmates were released in the year ending September 30 to ease overcrowding. Across the country, prisons remained at approximately 170 percent capacity as of September.
The PSD Human Rights and Transparency Office reported receiving 160 complaints with “allegations of harm” (a lesser charge than torture that did not require proof of intent) against officers for the 12-month period ending in September; 11 of these complaints remained ongoing in courts until year’s end. As of September, 33 resulted in a conviction, and 116 were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. Most alleged abuses occurred in pretrial detention. For the same period, the Human Rights and Transparency Office reported receiving 28 allegations of mistreatment in prisons and rehabilitation centers. As of September, six of those cases resulted in a conviction, and 22 were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.[20]
[20] Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023: Jordan, United States Department of State
It is also relevant to note that through the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of Jordan in which stakeholders make submissions on perceived breaches of human rights, there is no mention of prison conditions. Human Rights Watch raises the laws relating to debtor’s imprisonment but otherwise the human rights concerns are focused elsewhere. While the absence of any explicit engagement with prison conditions is not conclusive, it lends weight to a view that the conditions are not perceived to be breaches of human rights standards as protected under the ICCPR.
Conversely, the United Nations Committee against Torture in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Jordan delivered on 19 November 2024 states:
33.The Committee is concerned that, despite the measures taken by the State party to reduce overcrowding in correctional and rehabilitation centres by transferring inmates to overflow centres on a weekly basis and providing alternative measures to imprisonment, overcrowding remains a challenge. The Committee is also concerned that poor sanitation, lack of access to healthcare and shortages of blankets and adequate food remain serious challenges (arts. 11 and 16).
34. The State party should:
(a) Continue its efforts to alleviate overcrowding in detention facilities, including through the application of alternative measures to imprisonment;
(b) Take effective measures to improve sanitation and quality of food;
(c) Improve medical and healthcare in detention facilities, including by recruiting duly trained medical personnel and by providing the necessary psychological and psychiatric support for those in need; and take the measures necessary to provide medical equipment and medicines in all places of deprivation of liberty;
(d) Ensure the application of relevant international human rights standards, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non ‑ custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules).[21]
[21] Fourth periodic report of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan regarding the implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishmenthttps://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=RBHDsbtzM5DdYIBrc1erSIcQmZQ1tjbInxQlE4nDp7%2FJ8UVKxB%2FZMpf4EBe0lVXOZIV7kFzz8mixNNU1QaUvcw%3D%3D
In response to the concerns raised by the Committee the Director of the Human Rights Directorate within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of Jordan submitted:
Arrest and detention places were subjected to administrative and judicial oversight. There were also regular, periodic and unannounced visits conducted by the National Human Rights Centre and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Alternatives were provided for pretrial detention. Signs had been developed at detention centres, illustrating the rights and duties of detainees during their detention period. However, challenges remained, including overcrowding in prisons, which would be addressed in line with the State’s capabilities.
…
If there was overcrowding at a facility, detainees were transferred to an overspill centre.[22]
[22] >
In a separate response to the specific concerns raised, the Jordanian government noted the following[23]:
a.Regarding access to health care:
If the Public Security Directorate observes signs indicating that a person might be in poor health, or if a person claims to be suffering a health condition, it orders an independent body to undertake a medical examination. No detained persons may be placed in a detention facility inside a security centre until their state of health has been verified, to which end they are sent to a hospital for a health check. Moreover, no one may be placed in temporary detention without a medical report showing that they are in good health and not suffering from any illness. All this is to be set down in the record.
b.Regarding access to food:
Inmates of correctional and rehabilitation institutions are provided with meals by a specialized catering company on the basis of agreements between the company and the Public Security Directorate that stipulate the amount and kind of food to be supplied. The food is provided in line with a recognized nutritional programme and under the direct supervision of an oversight committee which monitors any irregularities in terms of quantity, type or quality. The institution’s doctor also periodically inspects the kitchen and the food hygiene, and submits a report thereon. If any violations are discovered, the company is given a written warning and issued with a fine. It should be noted, moreover, that the food provided to inmates is the same as that provided to staff of correctional and rehabilitation institutions and to all units of the Public Security Directorate.
[23] Fourth periodic report of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan regarding the implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishmenthttps://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=8XoJIXVOYUdSxMAjvQ%2F9ZBkXs1LKiX7%2FcXV2DPCc9XIZouadD1%2FULe3p3Vr7vIkp4ao25OKktCGkclRq77KDdw%3D%3D
In 2022 ‘the Jordanian Minister of Interior stated that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Centers could accommodate 13,288 inmates, while the actual number of people in prisons in Jordan was of 19,140, making its occupancy rate 144 percent.’ As has been noted in assessments of Australian prison overcrowding, in of itself it does not necessarily mean that human rights are breached but rather the question is how the overcrowding impacts on rights such as, ‘rights to life, health, security of the person, privacy, to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and the international human rights law requirement that the goal of prison be rehabilitation.’[24]
Are the conditions in Jordanian prisons such that they amount to significant harm?
[24] "Overcrowding in Australian prisons: the human rights implications" [2015] PrecedentAULA 38; (2015) 128 Precedent 37
For the applicant to be found to face significant harm arising from prison conditions the Act requires that the circumstances he faces would be such that they impose an act or omission by which either:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
Or
that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable
Or
by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person [for particular reasons defined as torture]
In addition, the Migration Act specifically defines these forms of significant harm as being acts or omissions that must not be ‘inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant’ referring to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Article 7 of the ICCPR states ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.’
The Department of Immigration’s Complementary Protection Guidelines engage with the question of whether detention, imprisonment and prison conditions can amount to significant harm. The Guidelines describe instances that the United Nations Human Rights Committee have found breaches of Article 7 including:
·extremely cramped, overcrowded or unsanitary conditions
·exposure to cold
·inadequate ventilation or lighting
·lack of adequately nutritious food or water, adequate clothing or a separate bed, or opportunity for adequate exercise
·threats of torture or death
·prolonged solitary confinement or total isolation, including being held incommunicado
·denial of medical treatment
·inadequate medical services
·harsh rules of conduct and discipline restricting fundamental rights of prisoners, for example: the use of harsh punitive measures such as frequent resort to solitary confinement or being forced to maintain a certain position for prolonged periods of time, unfair procedures for deciding on disciplinary measures, inadequate protection against reprisals by warders, lack of a credible complaints mechanisms and frequent use of protective measures such as leather handcuffs
·violent treatment in detention, including acts such as beatings or assaults by prison warders, mock executions, theft or destruction of personal possessions, or displaying prisoners in a cage to the press.
In the context of detention, force may be used by authorities to enforce discipline, but that use of force must be proportionate in light of the circumstances.
The reference case for extremely cramped, overcrowded, or unsanitary conditions is a 1984 case in which Views of the Committee were that the Dominican Republic had breached Article 7 when the alleged victim was:
taken to a cell at the secret service police headquarters, from where he was transferred to another cell measuring 20 by 5 metres, where approximately 125 persons accused of common crimes were being held, and where, owing to lack of space, some detainees had to sit on excrement. He received no food or water until the following day. On 16 June 1984, after 50 hours of detention, he was released.[25]
[25] UN Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 188/1984, 31st sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/31/D/188/1984 (5 November 1987) (‘Martinez Portorreal v Dominican Republic’) [9.2]. See >
As a reference to inadequate ventilation and lighting the matter of UN Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 577/1994, 61st sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/61/D/577/1994 (6 November 1997) (‘Polay Campos v Peru’)[26]:
The author further submits that her husband is held in a subterranean cell where sunlight only penetrates for 10 minutes a day, through a small opening in the ceiling. During the first year of his prison sentence, he was not permitted visits by any friends or relatives, nor was he allowed to write to anyone or to receive correspondence. A delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross has been allowed to visit him.
The Committee finds that the conditions of Mr. Polay Campos' detention, especially his isolation for 23 hours a day in a small cell and the fact that he cannot have more than 10 minutes' sunlight a day, constitute treatment contrary to article 7 and article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
[26] type="1">
As an example of a finding of a breach of Article 7 with regards to a lack of adequate nutritious food or water, adequate clothing or a separate bed, or opportunity for adequate exercise the Guidelines reference UN Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 458/1991, 51st sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 (21 July 1994) (‘Mukong v Cameroon’) [9.4]
He was continuously held in a cell…measuring approximately 25 square metres, together with 25 to 30 other detainees. The cell did not have sanitary facilities. As the authorities refused to feed him initially, the author was without food for several days, until his friends and family managed to locate him.[27]
[27] >
In the matter of Mukong v Cameroon the committee notes that certain minimum standards of detention must be observed and specifically reference Rules 10, 12, 17, 19 and 20 from the UN Standard for the Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. In summary, the document states that accommodation should meet the requirements for health including minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation; that sanitary installations shall be adequate; that appropriate clothing is accessible; that each prisoner shall have their own bed; and that the food provided should have a sufficient nutritional value.
In considering the applicant’s case and specifically whether detention in Jordanian prisons meets the threshold of significant harm, I note that this is a highly subjective assessment with incomplete information available to the Tribunal. Unlike matters considered by the UN Human Rights Committee, this Tribunal does not have the benefit of responses to questions by the state party. Instead, I am limited to the information that is publicly available.
I note that the Departmental Guidelines and the views of the Human Rights Committee and the concerns raised by the Committee against Torture are only their views. I do not place any greater weight on them than that. Nevertheless, the Act specifically references Article 7 of the ICCPR in that it cannot be breached and as such the views of the Human Rights Committee in particular on what constitutes breaches of Article 7 are informative. The examples of breaches of Article 7 include situations in which there is targeted ill-treatment which is compounded by poor facilities or extremely poor conditions.
The circumstances that the applicant faces are poor particularly those that arise from overcrowding such as limited bedding, but even when considered as a whole, I find that these conditions are not such that imprisonment amounts to someone meeting the definition of facing a real risk of significant harm. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that there is targeted ill-treatment or intentionality as required by the Act. There is no evidence that the design of prisons is intended to cause significant harm, that there is an intention to withhold resources or to differentially treat prisoners such as the applicant. On the contrary, it appears that the Jordanian government is undertaking efforts to upgrade and maintain prisons and prison services as best as can be undertaken within the constraints that they face such as the large influx of Syrian refugees and a downturn in their economy.[28]
[28] >
With regards to the issue of maltreatment by prison officials. I note that the number of such cases is small relative to the prison population and that the applicant would not have a profile that would lead to him being targeted but instead stands the risk of random transgressions by prison officials such that the risk he faces serious or significant harm is remote. As such, I find that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm in the form of maltreatment from prison officials.
The applicant’s other fears
The applicant claimed that he had made [social media] posts critical of the Jordanian king. The posts he provided to the Tribunal are not in his name and in addition they are not critical of the King. That the applicant has reposted news items related to official meetings with Israel or of an interview with a former Israeli Prime Minister is not critical of the king in the sense of it posing a risk to the applicant. The only post that comes close to being critical of King Abdullah II is a repost of a BBC article about the Pandora Papers. When considered overall, noting that there is no evidence before me that would suggest reposting such BBC articles is problematic or that the BBC itself has been banned from Jordan, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from his social media activities.
The applicant is of Palestinian heritage. He did not claim that this characteristic in of itself will lead him to face harm but rather that any harm he faces for other reasons will be amplified because of his heritage. As such, to avoid doubt, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm because he is of Palestinian heritage.
The applicant has a child who would be unable to travel to Jordan accompanied by her mother as her mother has been found to be owed protection. The child could travel unaccompanied if agreed to by her mother to visit her father. Noting that they remain on good terms this is possible, but even so it would be intermittent and short term. Being separated from her for reasons of her mother’s fear of persecution creates a persecutory harm that I must consider.
It is clear that the applicant plays a role in the child’s life. They spend time together and he provides some financial support as detailed in the letters provided by the mother and child to the Tribunal. When considered individually, while I accept that the applicant will face a degree of psychological harm arising from this separation, I find that this does not amount to serious or significant harm.
Cumulative concerns
The applicant will be imprisoned upon return to Jordan for 60 days. There is no evidence before me that indicates that people of Palestinian heritage are treated differently in prisons. The applicant has experienced two nights in prison and did not claim to have been treated differently than any other prisoner. While the applicant has used social media in the past, none of the posts that he has provided to the Tribunal indicate that he would be considered against the King. He has not claimed to have expressed such views in other forums. At one stage the applicant expressed a view about police corruption. I find that he will share similar views with fellow prisoners but not with prison guards just as he shared such views in the past with those in his social circle and not random officials.
For the reasons discussed above, including considering the applicant’s circumstances cumulatively, I find that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm as defined in the Act for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
Request for Ministerial Intervention
The applicant in consultation with the Tribunal has requested that the Tribunal refer the case to the Department for consideration by the Minister pursuant to s 351 of the Act which gives the Minister a discretion to substitute for a decision of the Tribunal another decision that is more favourable to the applicant, if the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so.
I have read the Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers and the material related to cases that should be brought to the Minister’s attention. Two unique and exceptional circumstances identified by the guidelines are relevant:
strong compassionate circumstances that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to an Australian citizen or an Australian family unit, where at least one member of the family is an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident
a person’s particular circumstances or personal characteristics provide a sound basis for believing that there is a significant threat to their personal security, human rights or human dignity if they return to their country of origin, but the mistreatment does not meet the criteria for the grant of any type of protection visa.
With regards to the strong compassionate circumstances, the applicant has an [age]-year-old Australian citizen child. The child’s mother is originally from Jordan but was granted a protection visa and as such cannot travel to Jordan. As a result, the applicant, were he to return to Jordan would be unable to be visited by his daughter until she can travel unaccompanied. The daughter wrote a letter to the Tribunal:
Hi. My name is [name], I love my dad [very] much. We do a lot of fun things together like fishing or ice skating and we go to luna park and adventure parks in the summer time. He also takes me to my favorite cafes. And he brings my lunch to school sometimes when my mum doesn’t make my lunch.
The applicant’s former wife wrote that despite their marriage having not worked out the applicant continues to play a ‘major’ role in their daughter’s life and that all three get along well. She wrote, ‘Having [the applicant] around is so important for both of us since we have no family in Australia. He helps me personally to baby sit whenever I have work or going school as I’m trying to get my [qualification].’
With regards to the former wife’s view of his relationship to their daughter, she writes, ‘He spends a lot of time with [daughter] and they both organise different activities on the weekends…also helps us a little financially or with extra activities for our daughter.’
With regards to a person’s particular circumstances that they will face a significant threat to their personal security, I note that I have found that the applicant will be detained for reasons of a debt. I note that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 11, states, ‘No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.’
The Australian Attorney-General’s Department website refers to the right against imprisonment for an inability to fulfil a contract as a ‘fundamental right’ and that this means ‘that it cannot be limited or qualified under any circumstances.’[29]
[29] >
While the harm the applicant faces does not trigger the very specific criteria for protection under the Migration Act, the specific circumstances the applicant faces amount to a significant threat to his personal security, human right and human dignity.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s case and the ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in departmental policy ‘Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers (s351, s417 and s501J)’ and will refer the matter to the Department.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Hearing dates: 12 November 2024
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b) significant physical harassment of the person;
(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a) the person can access the protection; and
(b) the protection is durable; and
(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…
22 January–2 February 2024ActionsDownload as PDF Download as Word Document
Citations2008045 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1386
Cases Citing This Decision0