A/HRC/45/9 and insufficient imposition of financial penalties by immigration authorities despite documenting persistent failure to comply with detention standards. Indeed, the authorities were found to issue waivers from particular detention standards, thereby further undermining accountability for poor detention conditions and abuses. 51 Despite these concerning findings, little action appears to have been taken to address the issues raised. The Working Group received similar accounts from other countries, particularly those in which companies are heavily involved in immigration detention. While national oversight mechanisms are a valuable tool for making concrete recommendations to improve the protection of persons deprived of their liberty, a lack of follow-up to their recommendations and an absence of enforcement mechanisms undermine their effectiveness. 68. Legal avenues have provided opportunities for seeking to pursue accountability and remedies for victims. Companies have been brought to court in relation to abusive labour practices against detained migrants, notably withholding the meagre wages owed to them for exploitative tasks such as cleaning of the premises. Some successful legal actions have required a Government to provide medical care on its territory to detainees held in offshore detention. Class action lawsuits have been brought against national authorities and companies with regard to overall detention conditions and access to food, water and health care, among other things. 69. Kamasaee v. Commonwealth of Australia and Ors is an emblematic class action suit brought against the Government of Australia and two companies contracted to run the offshore immigration detention centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea. It was alleged that the Government of Australia and the two private contractors repeatedly breached a duty of care owed by them to asylum seekers detained in the centre in relation to, inter alia, the conditions of detention, access to food and water and to health care, and internal and external security measures. In 2017, a settlement was reached for the sum of 70 million Australian dollars plus costs, estimated at 20 million Australian dollars. 70. Despite this substantial settlement, the case was closed without admission of liability and with many issues unresolved. While the settlement agreement provided financial compensation to a number of those who had been detained on Manus Island, it did not address the underlying need to end their detention, ensure their protection after the detention centre was closed, and provide for their resettlement. In addition, details of the settlement were not made public, and it remains unknown who paid for the settlement, leaving open the possibility that the two private contractors may have escaped financial liability.52 71. Another emblematic case was the death of Jimmy Mubenga during the course of his forced deportation from the United Kingdom to Angola, raised in a communication by the Working Group. 53 He died in 2010 after being forcibly restrained by private security personnel of G4S contracted by the Government of the United Kingdom to escort his deportation. The three security guards underwent trial for manslaughter and were all acquitted in 2014. Ten years later, there has been no accountability for his death. 72. Ultimately, these and other similar cases have yet to result in legal judgments that address systemic issues and challenge the current model of Governments outsourcing immigration and border management functions to private commercial actors, and the flagrant lack of accountability for human rights abuses committed by companies and their personnel in this domain. 73. Other strategies that have also been pursued have included local legislative reform. In one country, there have been significant, if piecemeal, legislative advances made when local authorities introduced legislation banning new contracts and contract renewals with companies in immigration detention and phased out existing contracts within a deadline of several years. There have been reports, however, of companies suing the local authorities in an attempt to repeal the law. In one case, a new, long-term contract was signed in haste 51 52 53 16 See www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-06/OIG-19-47-Jun19.pdf. Gabrielle Holly, “Transnational tort and access to remedy under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Kamasaee v. Commonwealth”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 19, No 1 (2018). See GBR 5/2010.