Killed: Janine Balding was 20 when she was abducted and murdered. According to the UN, the prison term and highly remote prospect of parole breached article 7 of the covenant – that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The sentence contravened another article in the covenant – that juveniles be punished as minors and that penitentiary systems have rehabilitation as an "essential aim". The human rights committee also noted that the sentence breached the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The decision was met with horror from Ms Balding's family, which is determined that Blessington and Elliott should never be free.

"They knew what they were doing," said David Balding, Ms Balding's brother. "They should stay where they are. They have nothing to offer society." "There have been a ridiculous amount of appeals already, including to the High Court. Each one has been rejected and each one has caused this family a huge amount of pain. "Just when you think it's over, it's on again." But lawyers for the two men said, regardless of the terrible nature of the crimes, they should have been treated as juveniles. "No one is questioning the terrible nature of the crimes committed, but an effective and lawful response to children committing such crimes requires more than simply locking them up and throwing away the key," said Ruth Barson from the Human Rights Law Centre, which represented Blessington and Elliott in the UN action.

"Children are different and the justice system normally recognises that they have less responsibility for crime and greater prospects for rehabilitation." "As a society, we accept that children are different from adults. They can't vote, can't smoke or drink, or go to war". Blessington and Elliott were among four juveniles in the gang, which also included a 15-year-old girl, that abducted Ms Balding at knifepoint near Sutherland train station. They then drove to a park near Minchinbury, where Ms Balding was repeatedly raped, her legs bound to her neck before she was carried to a nearby lake and drowned. The group then sold Ms Balding's jewellery and used her cash card to withdraw money.

Ms Balding, born and raised in Wagga Wagga, had recently moved to Sydney to work as a bank teller. She was engaged to be married. Coming two years after the equally horrific abduction, gang-rape and murder of nurse Anita Cobby in western Sydney, the crime generated outrage and fear in the community. Blessington and Elliott had both been sexually abused at a young age, came from broken homes and had serious psychological and substance abuse problems. Trial judge Justice Peter Newman agreed the duo had a harsh upbringing that would lead "inevitably to serious criminality". But the crime was "so barbaric" a life sentence should be imposed, he reasoned.

"So grave is the nature of this case that I recommend that none of the prisoners in this matter should ever be released," he said in his 1990 decision. The recommendation also applied to 22-year-old Stephen Wayne "Shorty" Jamieson, who was also sentenced to life in prison for murdering Ms Balding. However, the recommendation didn't have full legal force until then Premier Bob Carr, almost a decade later, introduced the Crimes Administration of Sentences Act for the "most heinous crimes". Blessington and Elliott were two of nine individuals, and the only juvenile offenders, caught up in the retrospective laws, which ensured they would remain in prison until they died, or became incapacitated. Blessington and Elliott – who originally pleaded not guilty – now accept their prison terms and their culpability, Ms Barson said.

However, they want the opportunity of parole, if deemed to have been rehabilitated. Now in their 40s, the men have been imprisoned for 26 years. As it stands, they will have an opportunity to appeal to a court in 2018 to have a date for a parole hearing set. But, even if a date is granted, they can still only be released by the parole board if they are about to die or physically debilitated. The UN Human Rights Committee has asked the federal government to review the case and remedy the human rights breach, in a decision dated October 22. While the UN found the men's rights had been violated, it said "this does not mean that release should necessarily be granted".

However, the decision reiterated that the men should have access to parole if they have been rehabilitated. "The review procedure should be a thorough one, allowing the domestic authorities to evaluate [the men's] concrete progress towards rehabilitation." The UN also says the violation of men's rights could be remedied by way of compensation, although Ms Barson said compensation is not the issue in this case. The men were convicted and sentenced under NSW law, but the state government is also bound by the UN covenant and has been made aware of the directive. A UN Human Rights Committee decision is not enforceable, even though Australia is a signatory to the covenant.

It has been given 180 days to respond.