U jeku smo globalne pandemije COVID-19, bolest prouzrokovana koronavirusom pod nazivom SARS-CoV-2. Pandemija je proglašena od strane Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije SZO 12. marta 2020. godine, nakon čega su vlade većine država počele da uvode raznorazne mjere u cilju minimalnog širenja ovog virusa, odnosno prevencije prekomjernog oboljevanja. O potrebi uvođenja mjera kao primjeri nam mogu poslužiti posljedice zakašnjelih reakcija SAD-a i Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva koji su odbijali da shvate ozbiljnost pandemije, čak su dovodili u pitanje nadležnost i sposobnost SZO-a da procijeni situaciju, što je rezultiralo u masovnim ljudskim žrtvama koje su se lako mogle prevenirati. U drugu krajnjost možemo staviti države poput Njemačke ili Novog Zelanda, koji su izuzetno ozbiljno upozorili svoje građane te na vrijeme uveli odgovarajuće mjere i na taj način izbjegle gubitke koje su pretrpjele Italija i Kina[1]. Međutim, negdje na sredini ovih krajnosti jesu politički režimi koje su zloupotrijebile pandemiju za uvođenje neopravdano oštre mjere te na taj način ugrozile principe demokratije i kršile ljudska prava u svojim državama.

Uvod u ljudska prava i vanredna situacija

Suportno generalnoj pretpostavci, nisu sva ljudska prava apsolutna, odnosno prava od kojih se ne smije derogirati. Šta to znači? Ukratko, apsolutna prava su ona prava koja ne smiju biti suspendirana niti ograničavana, čak i kada je proglašeno vanredno stanje – dakle, niti jedna situacija ne opravdava kvalifikaciju ili ograničenje apsolutnih prava. Ta prava su: sloboda od mučenja i drugog okrutnog, nečovječnog ili ponižavajućeg ponašanja, sloboda od ropstva i sličnih odnosa, sloboda od služenja zatvorske kazne zbog nemogućnosti izvršavanja ugovorne obaveze, zabrana retroaktivne primjene krivičnih zakona te pravo priznanja pred zakonom. Prava od kojih se ne smije derogirati ne mogu biti suspendirana u vanrednom stanju ali ograničenja su moguća ukoliko je opravdano, što najčešće podrazumijeva da se uslovi opravdanosti propišu zakonom kako bi se spriječila proizvoljna primjena. Takva prava su: pravo na život, sloboda od mučenja i drugog okrutnog, nečovječnog ili ponižavajućeg ponašanja, sloboda od medicinskog ili naučnog ispitivanja mimo volje ispitanika, sloboda od ropstva i sličnih odnosa, sloboda od služenja zatvorske kazne zbog nemogućnosti izvršavanja ugovorne obaveze, zabrana retroaktivne primjene krivičnih zakona,pravo priznanja pred zakonom, kao i sloboda mišljenja, savjesti i vjere. Sva apsolutna prava također pripadaju grupiti prava koja se ne smiju derogirati, zbog čega dolazi do preklapanja. Način na koji su prava definisana ovisi od međunarodnog pravnog akta kojim je propisan.

Imajući ovo na umu, moramo shvatiti da određene mjere ograničavaju naša prava i slobode ali su opravdane i legalne zbog trenutne pandemije. To je razlog zbog čega su pojedine države proglasile vanredno stanje, odnosno vanrednu situaciju kako bi legalno uveli takve mjere. Prethodno spomenuti termini označavaju istu pravnu situaciju, odnosno situaciju koje predstavljaju vanredne okolnosti te predstavljaju pretnju zdravlju i sigurnosti stanovništva. Važno je naglasti da termin u upotrebi ovisi od zakonske terminologije, a ne od prirode nesreće odnosno vanrednih okolnosti. Oružani sukob je najpoznatije (i najstrahovanije!) vanredno stanje, posebno u Bosni i Hercegovini kao postkonflitnoj državi, tako da uzmite ovo kao dobronamjernu napomenu da nema potrebe za panikom da će upravo doći do novog rata. Također, trenutni tip vanredne situacije regulisano je Okvirnim zakonom o zaštiti i spašavanju ljudi i materijalnih dobara od prirodnih ili drugih nesreća u BiH. U pravnom okviru nadležnosti entiteta i Brčko distrikta, proglas ovakvog vanrednog stanja je moguće pod odgovarajućim zakonima uzimajući u obzir da je zdravstvo zapravo nadležnosti entiteta prema Ustavu BiH. S druge strane, nacionalna sigurnost, teritorijalni i politički integritet i sl. su u nadležnosti države, tako da u slučaju vanrednog stanja usljed oružanog sukoba, takav proglas bi bilo isključivo pravo i obaveza Bosne i Hercegovine.

Mjere javnog zdravstva u BiH

Već od samog uvođenja stanje nesreće na području BiH i uvođenje prvih mjera od strane nadležnih institucija, počelo se postavljati pitanje opravdanosti i legalnosti ovih mjera.

  1. Zabrana kretanja maloljetnicima i osobama starijim od 65 godina (sloboda kretanja)

Kada je riječ o ovoj mjeri, očigledno je da došlo do ograničenja kretanja velikom procentu bh. stanovištva na neodređeno vrijeme. Tek nakon više od mjesec dana i odluke Ustavnog suda BiH su ublažene mjere. Povodom ove mjere  Ustavni sud BiH u presudi navodi sljedeće:

„Utvrđuje se kršenje prava na slobodu kretanja iz člana II/3.m) Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine i člana 2. Protokola broj 4 uz Evropsku konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, u odnosu na apelante Lejlu Dragnić, A. B.  i   sve   ostale osobe   u   relevantno   istoj činjeničnoj i pravnoj situaciji.“ ali ipak smatra neosnovanim ukidanje mjere zabrane kretanja maloljetnicima i licima iznad 65. godina. Ustavni sud također zapaža da je „Dopunom nove Naredbe broj 12-40-6-148-34-2/20 od 3. aprila 2020. godine, osobama mlađim od 18 godina dozvoljeno kretanje u vozilu, a starijim od 65 godina dozvoljeno je kretanje,između ostalog, radi preuzimanja penzija u vremenu od 8 do 12 sati od ponedjeljka 6. aprila dopetka 10. aprila 2020. godine. Uz to, Ustavni sud zapaža da ne postoji stvarna fizička prisila, niti su propisane   drastične   novčane   kazne   ili   prisilno   zatvaranje   zbog   nepoštivanja   ovih   mjera,   što   su također faktori koji se moraju cijeniti.“

U konačnici, Ustavni sud zaključuje da je prekršeno apelanata na slobodu kretanja   zato   što   ne   postoji proporcionalnost,   odnosno   pravična   ravnoteža   između   mjera   naloženih   osporenom   Naredbom i javnog interesa   zaštite   javnog   zdravlja,   budući   da   prethodno   nije   razmotrena   i   obrazložena nemogućnost nalaganja blažih mjera, da nametnute mjere nisu striktno vremenski ograničene, niti je utvrđena obaveza Federalnog štaba/stožera da te mjere redovno preispituje i produži samo ako je to „neophodno u demokratskom društvu“. Pored toga, nalaže nadležnim organima da prilagodi mjere umjesto da ih u potpunosti ukida te da redovno obavještava građane FBiH ne samo o mjerama već i o načinu odlučivanja o uvođenju istih s naglaskom na konsultacije sa strukom, u ovom slučaju sa epidemiolozima i drugim relevantnim stručnjacima. Također ističe neproporcionalnost mjere obzirom da nema jasno naznačeno vremensko trajanje što dodatno utiče na pravnu sigurnost ali i na psihu građana na koju se odnosi ova mjera.

  1. Objavljivanje imena lica koji su dobili naredbu samoizolacije/zabranu kretnja (pravo na privatnost i zaštita ličnih podataka)

Ova mjera, iako kratkoročnog karaktera, doživjela je veliko negodovanje o strane javnosti ali i Agencije za zaštitu ličnih podataka, koja se uskoro oglasila povodom ove mjere, slijedom čega je i ukinut. Naime, Agencija je naglasila da uvođenje ovakve mjere nepotrebno te da se time krši Zakon o zaštiti ličnih podataka navodeći da je zakonska obaeza javnih organa da infomišu javnosti o svom radu na profesionalan i etičan način, „što nužno ne podrazumijeva iznošenje ličnih podataka, budući da se određeno stanje ili pojava mogu predočiti iznošenjem statističkih podataka.“ Objavljivanje ovih ličnih podatak na internet stranicama predstavlja davanje ličnih podataka neograničenom broju lica kojima su isti dostupni, zavisno od mjesta i načina objavljivanja. „Princip vremenskog ograničenja obrade ličnih podataka, dovodi se u pitanje na ozbiljan način jer jednom objavljeni lični podaci o prekršiocima mjera izolacije se neće moći kontrolisati (pravo na zaborav).“ U konačnici, lista treba da postoji ali ne treba da bude dostupna javnosti već javnim organima i institucijama kako bi izvršile svoje obaveze u skladu sa svojim nadležnostima u cilju zaštite stanovništva. Objavljivanjem imena i ostalih ličnih podataka predstavlja samo osnov za diskriminaciju tih lica od strane ostalih, koji, u stanju panike, traže krivca za trenutnu vanrednu situaciju.

  1. Zabrana objavljivanja lažnih informacija i sl. (sloboda govora, sloboda medija)

Uredba, donesena za vrijeme vanrednog stanja u RS-u, podrazumijeva zabranu i kažnjavanje izazivanja panike i nereda kojom se zabranjuje iznošenje ili prenošenje lažnih vijesti ili tvrđenja kojima se izaziva panika i nered za vrijeme vanrednog stanja, teže narušava javni red i mir ili onemogućava ili ometa sprovođenje mjera nadležnih organa što je izazvalo oštre kritike stručne javnosti jer je protumačena kao ograničavanje slobode govora. Slična mjera je uvedena u BD te se razmatralo uvođenje ovakve mjerei u FBiH.

Tekst uredbe je misteriozno nestao sa portala koji objavljuju tekstove pravnih akata u BiH nakon što je ukinut (ukidanje ne znači brisanje u potpunosti). Prema zvačnim objava Vlade RS-a “Razlozi za donošenje ove Uredbe sadržani su u činjenici da su se tokom primjene važeće Uredbe građani pridržavali mjera i uputstava nadležnih organa, te su se o epidemiološkoj situaciji informisali putem zvaničnih obavještenja nadležnih institucija”. Međutim, ovom ukidanju, odnosno povlačenju prethodila je oštra kritia međunarodne zajednice, konkretno od strane OSCE-a. Naime, OSCE-ov predstavnika za slobodu medija Désir i Šefica OSCE misije u BiH Kavalec zabrinuti su zbog prethodno pomenute mjere; „Potpuno razumijem cilj borbe protiv širenja lažnih informacija koje stvaraju paniku i nered tokom ove zdravstvene krize, ali legislatura ne bi trebala da ometa slobodan rad novinara ili njihovu sposobnost da izvještavaju o pandemiji i da pružaju informacije potrebne javnosti. Mediji su neizostavan saveznik u pružanju važnih informacija građanima i u borbi protiv „lažnih vijesti“ rekao je Désir.

 

/Amila Husić

 

IZVORI

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/apr/10/world-health-organization-who-v-coronavirus-why-it-cant-handle-pandemic
  2. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic
  3. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/22/top-economist-us-coronavirus-response-like-third-world-country-joseph-stiglitz-donald-trump
  4. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-24/coronavirus-uk-how-boris-johnson-s-government-let-virus-get-away
  5. https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/how-germanys-black-sheep-became-a-model-for-its-covid-19-response/
  6. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/10/elimination-what-new-zealands-coronavirus-response-can-teach-the-world
  7. https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Absoluterights.aspx
  8. https://www.osce.org/representative-on-freedom-of-media/446998
  9. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/dygbxk/these-30-regimes-are-using-coronavirus-to-repress-their-citizens?utm_campaign=sharebutton
  10. https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2020/apr/09/politicising-covid-19-like-playing-with-fire-who-director-general-says-after-trump-attack-video
  11. https://www.osce.org/representative-on-freedom-of-media/449041
  12. https://www.paragraf.ba/dnevne-vijesti/14042020/14042020-vijest3.html
  13. Ustav BiH
  14. Odluka o proglašenju nastanka stanja prirodne ili druge nesreće na teritoriji Bosne i Hercegovine (“Sl. glasnik BiH”, br. 18/2020)
  15. Odluka o proglašenju stanja nesreće uzrokovano pojavom koronavirusa (COVID 19) na području Federacije BiH (“Sl. glasnik FBiH”, br. 21/2020)
  16. Odluka o proglašenju vanredne situacije za teritoriju Republike Srpske (“Sl. glasnik RS”, br. 25/2020)
  17. Odluka o proglašenju ugroženosti stanovnika Brčko distrikta BiH od epidemije zarazne bolesti – korona virusa (COVID-19) (“Sl. glasnik Brčko distrikta BiH”, br. 12/2020)
  18. Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Predmet br. AP-1217/20

[1] Kinu i Italiju ne navodim kao primjere loše prakse jer su prve države koje su se suočile sa ovim virusom te objektivno nisu mogle biti spremne za obim ove pandemije niti na vrijeme se spremiti.

__________________________________________________________________

 

Human rights in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic

We are in the middle of the global COVID-19 pandemic, a disease caused by the coronavirus officially called SARS-CoV-2. The pandemic was announced by the World Health Organization – WHO[1] on the 12th of March 2020, after which most countries started imposing miscellaneous measures in order to minimize the spread of this virus, in other words in order to prevent excessive numbers of diseased. Whether or not these measures are necessary became painfully obvious in the aftermath of USA’s[2] and UK’s[3] tardy responses to the pandemic, outright refusing to accept the gravity of the pandemic (and even questioning WHO’s competence to assess the situation) which resulted in massive human loses which were easily preventable. On the other hand, as a different extreme, we see the responses of Germany[4] and New Zealand[5] as the authorities warned their citizens in a serious manner and imposed adequate measures on time, therefore, mitigating massive losses such as those in Italy and China[6]. However, somewhere between these two extremes are political regimes which have misused the pandemic for imposing unjustifiably harsh measure hence endangering the principles of democracy and violating human rights in the process.

Human rights and state of emergency

Contrary to popular belief, not all human rights are absolute rights or non-derogable rights. What does this mean? In short, absolute rights are rights that cannot be suspended or restricted, even during a declared state of emergency – no circumstance justifies a qualification or limitation of absolute rights. These are: freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, freedom from slavery and servitude, freedom from imprisonment for inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, prohibition against the retrospective operation of criminal laws and right to recognition before the law. Non-derogable rights cannot be suspended even in a state of emergency but limitations are possible if justified which usually requires such circumstances to be prescribed by law in order to ensure non-arbitrary conduct. These are: right to life, freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; freedom from medical or scientific experimentation without consent, freedom from slavery and servitude, freedom from imprisonment for inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, prohibition against the retrospective operation of criminal laws, right to recognition before the law, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. All absolute rights are non-derogable, hence the repetition.[7] The way rights are defined depends on the international legal act it is prescribed by.

Bearing this in mind, we must understand that certain measures do limit our freedoms and rights but are justified and legal due to the ongoing epidemic. That is the reason why governments have proclaimed a state of emergency or emergency situation in order to legally impose such measures. These two terms are both describe situations which out of the ordinary and pose a threat to the health and security to the people – the use of either terms depends more on the terminology used in the legislature rather on the nature of the emergency itself. Armed conflict is the commonly known (and feared!) state of emergency, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a post-conflict country, so take this as a friendly reminder that there no need to panic about a new conflict at the moment. Also, the current type of emergency situation is regulated by the Framework Law on the Protection and Rescue of People and Material Property from Natural or Other Disasters in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the legal framework of the entities and Brčko District competencies the proclamation of such a state of emergency is possible under their corresponding laws as health is in fact entirely in the competence of the entities as regulated under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, since state security, territory and political integrity etc. are state competency, a state o emergence in the light of an armed conflict would be exclusively the right and obligation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Public health measures in B&H

Ever since the initial proclamation of emergency state in B&H and the implementation of the first measures by competent institutions, the justification and legality of these measures have been questioned.

  1. Prohibition of movement for minors and persons over 65 (Freedom of movement)

When it comes to this measure, it is obvious that there is a restriction on the movement for a large percentage of the population, indefinitely. Only after more than a month and the decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH were the measures mitigated. On this measure, the Constitutional Court of BiH states in its judgment the following:

“A violation of the right to freedom of movement under Article II (3) m) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is hereby established in respect of the appellants Lejla Dragnić, A.B. and all other persons in the relevant factual and legal situation.” but nevertheless the Court considers it unfounded to repeal the measure prohibiting the movement of minors and persons over 65 years of age. The Constitutional Court also notes that “By supplementing the new Order no. 12-40-6-148-34-2 / ​​20 of the 3rd April 2020, persons under the age of 18 are allowed to move in a vehicle and those over 65 are allowed to move, among other things, to pick up their pensions between 8am and 12am from Monday 6 April to 10 April 2020. In addition, the Constitutional Court notes that there is no real physical coercion, no drastic fines or forced imprisonment for failure to comply with these measures, which are also factors that must be taken into account.”

Finally, the Constitutional Court finds that the appellants’ freedom of movement has been violated, because there is no proportionality or a fair balance between the measures ordered by the impugned Order and the public interest in protecting public health, since the impossibility of imposing lenient measures has not been previously discussed and explained, the measures imposed are not strictly time-limited, nor is the obligation of the Federal Staff / Headquarters to review and extend these measures on a regular basis only if “necessary in a democratic society”. In addition, it requires the competent authorities to adjust the measures instead of completely abolishing them and to regularly inform the citizens of the FBiH not only of the measures but also of the decision-making methods for their introduction, with an emphasis on consultation with the profession, in this case with epidemiologists and other relevant experts. It also emphasizes the disproportionality of the measure since it does not have a clearly stated time duration, which further affects the legal certainty and also the psyche of the citizens affected by this measure.

  1. Publication of the names of persons who have obtained the order of self-isolation / prohibition of movement (Right to privacy and Protection of personal data)

This measure, albeit of a short-term nature, has received great resentment from both the public and the Personal Data Protection Agency, which soon came forward with regard to this measure, which led to its termination. Specifically, the Agency emphasized that the introduction of such a measure is unnecessary and that it violates the Law on Protection of Personal Data, stating that it is a legal obligation of public authorities to inform the public about their work in a professional and ethical manner, “which does not necessarily entail the disclosure of personal data, since a certain condition or occurrence may be represented by the presentation of statistical data.” The posting of this personal information on the web constitutes the giving of personal information to an unlimited number of persons to whom it is available, depending on the place and manner of publication. “The principle of the time limitation of the processing of personal data is being questioned in a serious way because once published personal data of the violators of isolation measures will not be controllable (right to be forgotten).” Ultimately, the list should exist but should not be available to the public but to public authorities and institutions in order to carry out their duties in accordance with their competencies in order to protect the population. The disclosure of names and other personal information is only grounds for discriminating against these persons by others, who, in a state of panic, are looking for a culprit for the current emergency situation.

  1. Ban on publishing false information, etc. (Freedom of speech, Freedom of the media)

A decree issued during a state of emergency in the RS entity implies a prohibition and punishment for causing panic and disorder, which prohibits the presentation or transmission of fake news or claims causing panic and disorder during a state of emergency, severely impairs public order or prevents or interfering with the implementation of measures by the competent authorities, which provoked sharp criticism from the expert public as it was interpreted as restricting freedom of speech. A similar measure was introduced in the BD and the introduction of such a measure in the FBiH was considered.

The content of the decree has mysteriously disappeared from portals that publish legal acts in BiH after it was repealed (repeal does not mean complete deletion). According to the official announcements of the RS Government: “The regulations adhered to the measures and instructions of the competent authorities and were informed by the official notifications of the competent institutions”. However, this abolition, or withdrawal, was preceded by sharp criticism from the international community, in particular by the OSCE. Specifically, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Désir and Head of OSCE Mission to BiH Kavalec were concerned about the aforementioned measure; “I fully understand the aim of tackling the dissemination of false information which creates panic and disorder during this health crisis, but the concerned legislation should not impede the free work of journalists or their ability to report on the pandemic and to provide information necessary to the public. The press is an indispensable ally in the provision of important information to citizens and in the fight against ‘fake news’,” Désir stated.

 

/Amila Husić

SOURCES

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/apr/10/world-health-organization-who-v-coronavirus-why-it-cant-handle-pandemic
  2. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic
  3. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/22/top-economist-us-coronavirus-response-like-third-world-country-joseph-stiglitz-donald-trump
  4. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-24/coronavirus-uk-how-boris-johnson-s-government-let-virus-get-away
  5. https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/how-germanys-black-sheep-became-a-model-for-its-covid-19-response/
  6. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/10/elimination-what-new-zealands-coronavirus-response-can-teach-the-world
  7. https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Absoluterights.aspx
  8. https://www.osce.org/representative-on-freedom-of-media/446998
  9. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/dygbxk/these-30-regimes-are-using-coronavirus-to-repress-their-citizens?utm_campaign=sharebutton
  10. https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2020/apr/09/politicising-covid-19-like-playing-with-fire-who-director-general-says-after-trump-attack-video
  11. https://www.osce.org/representative-on-freedom-of-media/449041
  12. https://www.paragraf.ba/dnevne-vijesti/14042020/14042020-vijest3.html
  13. Consitution of BiH
  14. Decision on the Declaration of the Natural or Other Emergency on the Territory Of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Official Gazette of BiH”, num. 18/2020)
  15. Decision on the Declaration of an Emergency Caused By Coronavirus (COVID 19) in the Area of the Federation of BiH (“Official Gazette of FBiH”, num. 21/2020)
  16. Decision to Declare an Emergency Situation on the Territory of Republika Srpska (“Official Gazette of RS”, num. 25/2020)
  17. Decision Declaring the Brcko District BiH Population at Risk of an Infectious Disease Epidemic – Corona Virus (COVID-19) (“Official Gazette of Brčko District BiH”, num. 12/2020)
  18. Constitutional Court of BiH, Case num. AP-1217/20

 

 

[1] http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic

[2]  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/22/top-economist-us-coronavirus-response-like-third-world-country-joseph-stiglitz-donald-trump

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-24/coronavirus-uk-how-boris-johnson-s-government-let-virus-get-away

[4] https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/how-germanys-black-sheep-became-a-model-for-its-covid-19-response/

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/10/elimination-what-new-zealands-coronavirus-response-can-teach-the-world

[6] China and Italy are not portrayed as “bad examples” as they were the first countries dealing with the virous and objectively could not be prepared for the volume of this pandemic nor could they have prepared in time

[7] https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Absoluterights.aspx