CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 enable persons with disabilities to exercise their legal capacity,45 the relevant rights of the person concerned must be respected. That did not happen in the author’s case, as he had no possibility and was not provided with adequate support or accommodation to exercise his rights to access to justice and a fair trial. In view thereof, the Committee considers that the situation under review amounts to a violation of the author’s rights under articles 12 (2) and (3) and 13 (1) of the Convention. 8.7 As to the author’s allegations relating to his detention, the Committee reaffirms that liberty and security of the person is one of the most precious rights to which everyone is entitled. In particular, all persons with disabilities, and especially persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, are entitled to liberty pursuant to article 14 of the Convention.46 In the present case, the Committee notes that, following the decision of the District Court of Western Australia of March 2003 according to which the author was declared unfit to plead, he was detained in prison without having been convicted of any offence, and after all the charges against him were quashed in application of the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the competent authorities adopted that decision because of the lack of available alternatives and support services, even though they considered that prison “was not the appropriate environment for the author” (see para. 4.5 above). The author’s detention was therefore decided on the basis of the assessment by the State party’s authorities of potential consequences of his intellectual disability, in the absence of any criminal conviction, thereby converting his disability into the core cause of his detention. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s detention amounted to a violation of article 14 (1) (b) of the Convention according to which “the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty”. 8.8 The Committee notes that the author was released from prison into an accommodation support service on 10 January 2012 under 10 conditions. Without entering into a detailed analysis of the conditions, the Committee considers that, as they were decided as a direct consequence of the detention of the author, which is found to be in violation of the Convention, the conditions also amount to a violation of article 14 (1) (b). 8.9 As regards the author’s allegations under article 15 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, at the time of the events that gave rise to the present communication, the author was detained in custody. In such a situation, the Committee emphasizes that States parties are in a special position to safeguard the rights of persons deprived of their liberty owing to the extent of the control that they exercise over those persons, 47 including to prevent any form of treatment contrary to article 15 of the Convention and to safeguard the rights established under the Convention. In this context, State party authorities must pay special attention to the particular needs and possible vulnerability of the person concerned, including because of his or her disability. In the present case, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that he was subjected to frequent acts of violence and abuse, that his disability prevented him from protecting himself against such acts, and that the State party authorities did not take any measures to sanction or prevent them or to protect the author therefrom. Additionally, the Committee notes that the author was detained for more than 13 years, without having any indication as to the duration of his detention. His detention was deemed indefinite in so far as, in compliance with section 10 of the Mentally Impaired 45 46 47 16 See communication No. 5/2011, Jungelin v. Sweden, Views adopted on 2 October 2014, para. 10.5. See the Committee’s guidelines on article 14 of the Convention on the right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities, adopted during its fourteenth session (2015), para. 3. See Committee against Torture, communication No. 456/2011, Guerrero Larez v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, decision adopted on 15 May 2015, para. 6.4; Committee on Enforced Disappearances, communication No. 1/2013, Yrusta v. Argentina, Views adopted on 11 March 2016, para. 10.5.