several occasions unsuccessfully sought release from the Minister and the Federal Court. The fact that the courts did not rule in his favour is not proof of a violation of article 9, paragraph 4. In any event, he did not seek to exercise avenues available to him to directly challenge the detention. The State party refers to Stephens v. Jamaica52 for the proposition that a failure to take advantage of an available remedy of, for example, habeas corpus is not evidence of a breach of article 9, paragraph 4. party’s reliance on generalized psychiatric literature for the opposite proposition that the author’s mental harm arose from predisposition rather than prolonged detention, and invites the Committee to prefer the specific assessments of the author. The author submits that the submissions by the State party on living standards at MIDC are not relevant, for the claim of breach of article 7 is the detention of the author for a prolonged period where it well knew that this was causing severe psychological trauma. From at least 19 August 1993, the State party’s authorities knew of this trauma, and the act of continuing to hold him in light of that knowledge, provides the “element of reprehensibleness” under article 7. Author’s comments 5.1 By submission of 16 May 2001, the author responded to the State party’s submissions. 5.2 As to the State party’s submissions on available domestic remedies, the author points to the Committee’s jurisprudence that such remedies may be taken to refer to judicial remedies, especially in cases of serious violations of human rights,53 such as arbitrary and prolonged detention. In any case, there is no obligation to pursue remedies that are neither enforceable nor effective,54 and neither a complaint to HREOC or the Ombudsman produces a binding order upon the State.55 As to the ability to pursue a habeas corpus claim in the High Court, such an act would be futile given that the High Court has upheld the validity of mandatory detention laws.56 5.4 As to the claim of a violation of article 7 in the event of a return to Iran, the author notes that it was clear that the form of persecution the Minister’s delegate had in mind on 8 February 1995 when approving the refugee claim involved article 7 rights.58 She considered that there was a real chance that he would suffer deprivation of liberty “under such conditions as to constitute persecution under the [Refugee] Convention”, which, according to the author, clearly goes beyond detention per se. The author also rejects the State party’s supposition that the situation in Iran has improved to the extent that there is no foreseeable risk of a violation of his rights. The Special Representative’s report referred to by the State party is far from conclusive on the “improving” human rights situation, noting that “human rights in Iran remains very much a work in progress” and “greater efforts are required”. Moreover, the subsequent report of the Special Representative, found that minorities remain “neglected” and that “there is a long way to go in terms of achieving a more forthcoming approach to the concerns of the minorities, both ethnic and religious”.59 The author also asserts that the psychological evidence contradicts the State party’s claim that he would not discontinue his medication in the event of a return, or, should he do so, react adversely to the Iranian authorities. The author notes that it is not known whether his medication is available in Iran. 5.3 In response to the State party’s claim that there is no evidence that a breach of article 7 caused the author’s mental illness, the author refers to the series of expert assessments of the author over an extended period, provided with the communication, along with a new assessment, unanimously drawing a specific causal link between detention and the psychiatric illness.57 The author criticizes the State 52 No. 373/1989. 53 R.T. v. France No. 262/1987, and Vicente v. Colombia No. 612/1995. 54 Ellis v. Jamaica No. 276/1988. 55 The author cites the rejection by the Executive of two recent reports by HREOC finding aspects of the State party’s asylum policy in breach of international standards. 56 5.5 As to the complaint under article 9, the author contends that A v. Australia conclusively established that the policy of mandatory detention violates article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4, and should be followed, for the present case is not factually distinguishable. The author clearly arrived to seek asylum, and did so within 24 hours of arrival. It is fanciful to suggest his detention in the initial period for two years was justified by false statements made Lim v. Australia, op.cit. 57 See note 17 for references to the original reports. The additional psychiatric report, dated 7 May 2001, by Associate Professor Harry Minas, Centre for International Mental Health, found that “While genetic factors are important in conferring a predisposition to the development of such illness, it is very often the case that such an illness is precipitated by extreme stress. The stress of prolonged detention, drawn out legal proceedings, and uncertainty as to his fate would be sufficient to precipitate such an illness in a person with the necessary predisposition.” The author was now considered to have been “clinically well for at least two, possibly three, years”. 152 58 Supra, at paragraph 2.6. 59 E/CN.4/2001/39.