CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 the extent that the author’s claim relates to his circumstances prior to his release in January 2012, the State party submits that the claim is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The author’s detention was mandated by decision of the Governor in Executive Council, acting on recommendations of the Review Board, under the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act. The decisions of the Review Board are subject to judicial review, by application to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Decisions of similar statutory bodies have been challenged under Western Australian law to determine whether they were taken according to law. Since guarantees relating to article 14 (2) are directed exclusively to the lawfulness of detention as a matter of domestic law, judicial review of the author’s detention would have been an effective remedy. The possibility of an application for judicial review of the Review Board’s decisions in relation to the author was specifically discussed during the 2010 District Court proceedings. The author’s legal representative responded that an application for judicial review was being prepared, but that the author preferred to have the issue of his fitness to plead dealt with by a court. The State party is not aware that any such application has been lodged, and the author therefore failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. It submits that no breach of article 14 (2) arises because at all times during the author’s detention, he was entitled to bring an application for judicial review, seeking to determine the lawfulness of his detention on the basis of the Review Board’s recommendations. 4.15 The State party considers that the author’s allegations relating to access to justice are inadmissible because they lack substantiation and are without merits. No civil or criminal proceedings are under way against the author. He is not charged with any offences because the indictment against him was quashed “without deciding the guilt or otherwise of the accused”. He is therefore not presumed guilty, and there are no witnesses to examine, or evidence to test, since no criminal charges remain against him. 4.16 The State party considers that the author’s allegations in relation to his treatment in prison are inadmissible or lack merit because the author makes a general assertion that he was at risk of harm, without specific claims. The records of the Western Australian Department of Corrective Services indicate that there were two minor altercations between the author and other prisoners on 7 October 2005 and 21 September 2007. Both incidents were successfully mediated and neither resulted in serious injury to the author. Prison authorities also identified that the author required additional support and monitoring on account of his status as an Aboriginal person with an intellectual disability. He was accordingly managed under the Support and Monitoring System, and participated in the Prisoner Risk Assessment Group. As a Disability Services client, the author was also placed on the Total Offender Management System and received one-on-one counselling. He also had culturally specific counselling and completed a cognitive skills intervention and an intellectual disability programme in 2003 and 2004. 4.17 As to the author’s allegations under article 14 (2) of the Convention, the State party submits that he is not an “accused” person and therefore the obligation of separation from convicted persons does not arise. In the alternative, the State party submits that it has fulfilled the obligation of separation to the extent required, taking into account its reservation to article 10 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that the principle of segregation is accepted as an objective to be achieved progressively. 4.18 The State party does not contest the admissibility of the author’s allegation relating to his wrongful conviction of a prison offence. When the error was discovered, the author’s home leave was immediately reinstated and upgraded, allowing two 48-hour overnight stays a week. The conviction was also administratively set aside. Following the incident, the Special Counsel to the Premier conducted an independent inquiry and acknowledged that the author’s conviction was wrongful. The Western Australian Department of 8