12/11/25 Defence Department

Subject: Final Notice – Breach of International Obligations and Teoh Principle

Dear Mitch,

I refer to my compensation application submitted on 29 May 2025, which remains unanswered. Your ongoing silence now constitutes a potential breach of international and domestic legal obligations, including under:

• The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

• The Geneva Conventions;

• The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and

• The Teoh Principle (Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh [1995] HCA 20).

Under the Teoh Principle, once Australia has ratified an international treaty — even if not yet enacted into domestic law — government decision-makers must act in accordance with those treaty obligations or risk breaching the doctrine of legitimate expectation.  This means that every administrative decision, including the handling of my compensation claim, must reflect Australia’s ratified human rights and environmental treaties.  Failure to do so constitutes defective administration and potential policy-based persecution of a protected civilian group born of wartime exposure.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, Dr Marcos Orellana, in his 23 October 2025 statement to the 80th Session of the UN General Assembly, confirmed that toxic remnants of war — including dioxins, asbestos, PFAS, and related military pollutants — continue to cause severe and long-term harm to human health and the environment.  The report specifically calls for compensation and healthcare for victims, and warns that continued inaction breaches international humanitarian and human-rights law.

By ignoring a civilian’s lawful application for redress while publicly acknowledging the existence of the very toxic exposures in question, the Department of Defence is now operating in direct contradiction of both international law and Australia’s own ratified obligations.

You are therefore formally placed on final notice that:

1. Your silence will be recorded in Annex B of the ongoing submission before the International Criminal Court;

2. Continued failure to respond will be treated as wilful obstruction and breach of duty under international law; and

3. The matter will be reported to the UN Special Procedures as part of the documented pattern of denial and non-compliance.

Please confirm, within seven (7) days:

• Receipt and registration of my 29 May 2025 compensation application;

• The reference number and assigned officer; and

• Defence’s acknowledgment of its obligations under the Teoh Principle and relevant treaties.

The UN Press Release (23 October 2025) is reproduced below for your record.

NEW YORK – Toxic remnants of war, including chemical agents, heavy metals, radioactive materials and persistent pollutants, are inflicting severe and long-lasting harm on people and ecosystems, a UN expert warned today.

“Toxic releases from military activities before, during and after armed conflicts not only threaten the rights to life, health, water, food, and a healthy environment of both current and future generations, but also undermine peacebuilding and reconstruction,” said Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights.

In a report to the 80^th session of the UN General Assembly, Orellana documented contamination due to military activities. The toxic sources he identified include depleted uranium munitions, asbestos and heavy metals from destroyed infrastructure, conflict-related oil spills, PFAS chemicals from firefighting foams at military bases, nuclear testing, and glyphosate spraying, among others.

Toxic remnants of war, including unexploded ordnance, chemical pollution, and sunken military vessels, can remain hazardous for decades, or longer, denying communities access to healthy soils, clean water and livelihoods. Indigenous Peoples, women, children, displaced persons and rural communities are often disproportionately affected.

“Accountability is hindered by military secrecy, unqualified sovereign immunity, and the difficulty of proving causation after long latency periods,” the Special Rapporteur said. “There is a need for baseline environmental data, advanced monitoring, including satellite remote sensing, and effective remedies, such as clean-up and compensation.”

Addressing these toxic legacies requires integrating human rights safeguards into military planning and post-conflict recovery, the expert stated. “International human rights law continues to apply in armed conflict, complementing international humanitarian law and multilateral environmental agreements,” he said.

“While the UN International Law Commission and the International Committee of the Red Cross have recently clarified legal obligations related to the protection of the environment in armed conflict, more needs to be done to prevent, reduce and address toxic legacies,” Orellana said.

The report contains a series of recommendations, including for States to include the crime of ecocide in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, safeguard protected areas that may be adversely affected by armed conflict, prohibit weapons with severe toxic legacies, such as depleted uranium and white phosphorus, and elaborate a new international instrument to address toxic remnants of war.

“Contamination caused by military activities is not inevitable, it is preventable,” the Special Rapporteur said.

He stressed that peacebuilding needs mandated environmental assessments both during and after conflict, and victims require assistance, including adequate healthcare.

“States must act decisively to protect people and the planet from the toxic remnants of war,” the expert said.

Marcos A. Orellana is the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes.

Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.

Country-specific observations and recommendations by the UN human rights mechanisms, including the special procedures, the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review, can be found on the Universal Human Rights Index https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/.

For inquiries and media requests, please contact: hrc-sr-toxicshr@un.org.

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts please contact Maya Derouaz (maya.derouaz@un.org) or Dharisha Indraguptha (dharisha.indraguptha@un.org).

Follow news related to the UN’s independent human rights experts on X: @UN_SPExperts

Reminder:

Under Article 25 of the Rome Statute, individuals — not institutions — are held criminally responsible for acts or omissions that constitute Crimes Against Humanity. Departmental affiliation does not provide immunity. Accountability attaches to each decision-maker who knew or should have known that their actions (or silence) perpetuated systemic harm.

For transparency:

All correspondence, submissions, and evidence related to this matter are publicly documented on my website and blog as part of the ongoing ICC record and international transparency obligations.

Warm Agent Orange Burns regards,

Danielle Stevens

We will always be a child of a Vietnam Veteran

https://agentorangechild.wixsite.com/agent-orange-child

A formal complaint has been lodged with the International Criminal Court for Crimes against Humanity. The final submission was the 1st of July 2025.

Australia ratified International treaties but failed to implement them into domestic laws.

When the United Nations tells you 8+ times you are breaking the law, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW. Stockholm Convention & Agent Orange is a chemical war crime against children.

Profit before People is a crime.

Duty ~ Knowledge ~ Silence = Guilty ⚖️

Annex

Public Evidence Thread – Formal Notice and Legal Record (12 November 2025)

Tweet 1 – 4:47 pm

Tag: @pmc_gov_au

Message: check your online portal for my complaint. You said yesterday that the removal of an elected government 11/11/1975 was illegal. I want my “War Baby” status returned. I was 362 days old when Whitlam was removed.

Legal purpose: establishes historical and constitutional foundation of harm; connects unlawful government removal to loss of protection for Vietnam-era children.

Annex reference: Annex A – Systemic Failures (constitutional continuity).

Tweet 2 – 4:51 pm

Message: I know you are obliged to issue acknowledgment under the Public Service Act 1999 and your Client Service Charter. Here is Dr O’s press release 23/11/25 backing my Article 15 submission to the International Criminal Court.

Legal purpose: confirms administrative obligation to respond; ties UN Special Rapporteur statement directly to ICC communication.

Annex reference: Annex B – Government Complicity (administrative non-response).

Tweet 3 – 4:56 pm

Message: I am requesting formal recognition as a child born of Vietnam-era service and affected by toxic exposure — a category that should exist under Australia’s obligations to protect civilians impacted by wartime activity. “Formerly known as War Baby status.”

Legal purpose: formal rights-based redefinition of “War Baby” under humanitarian law.

Annex reference: Annex A – Legal Reclassification of Protected Civilians.

Tweet 4 – 5:01 pm

Tag: @DVAAus

Message 1: My father’s Vietnam service record and my birth certificate confirm exposure lineage. DVA has a duty under the Teoh Principle and Veterans’ Entitlements Act to apply Australia’s ratified treaties in every decision.

Message 2: For @DVAAus medical review — you hold my full medical record (17 diagnosed conditions) each aligning with the 17 Statements of Principles for TCDD (dioxin). Every condition is evidence-based and verified. Ask Amanda.

Legal purpose: places DVA on notice of treaty-based obligations and scientific verification; establishes failure of administrative application of ratified law.

Annex reference: Annex B – Departmental Negligence and Treaty Breach.

Tweet 5 – 5:29 pm

Tag: @WHO @UNHumanRights

Message: WHO and UN Human Rights confirmed dioxin (TCDD) is a persistent organic pollutant causing multigenerational harm. My 17 diagnoses align with those findings and DVA’s SOPs. The science, the law, and the record are aligned — only policy lags. Policy isn’t Law.

Legal purpose: connects international scientific consensus with domestic administrative denial; demonstrates breach via policy vs law contradiction.

Annex reference: Annex A – International Evidence Alignment.

Tweet 6 – 5:29 pm (continued thread)

Message: Under the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, my protection as a civilian child born of war exposure was already law. It was Australia that failed to uphold it. @DVAAus

Legal purpose: cites direct humanitarian-law duty to protect civilian children of wartime operations; defines state failure as legal breach.

Annex reference: Annex A – Breach of Geneva Obligations.

Tweet 7 – 5:39 pm

Message: National Security doesn’t override humanitarian law or treaty obligations. Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions requires respect and ensuring respect in all circumstances. Withholding medical protection from civilians harmed by war toxins isn’t “security” — it’s a breach of law.

Legal purpose: pre-empts and invalidates “national security” defence; affirms supremacy of humanitarian law.

Annex reference: Annex A – Legal Doctrine Clarification.

Tweet 8 – 5:45 pm

Message: 2nd Generation Dioxin poisoning damaged our DNA. The removal of Whitlam erased the children of Vietnam veterans for 50 years. We are sick and need help from the governments that did this to us. Crimes against humanity and genocide. Agent Orange Child.

Legal purpose: frames cumulative evidence as crimes against humanity and genocidal neglect; connects political event (1975 dismissal) to five-decade policy erasure.

Annex reference: Annex A – Chronological Continuity of Harm; Annex B – State Complicity.

Record Summary – 12 November 2025

This public thread forms part of my formal evidence record submitted under Article 15 of the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court. Each post constitutes documented notice to the Australian Government, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and related authorities regarding their ongoing breach of international humanitarian and environmental law.

The thread establishes a continuous chain of correspondence linking my individual evidence — including medical documentation, birth and service records, and international confirmations of TCDD (dioxin) harm — with Australia’s ratified treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, Stockholm Convention, and the Rome Statute.

Together, these posts demonstrate that the State has been notified, that scientific and legal consensus already exist, and that administrative silence now constitutes wilful neglect of known civilian victims of wartime toxic exposure. This record is preserved publicly as evidence of systemic failure and international complicity.