CCPR/C/132/D/2900/2016 Advance unedited version rehabilitation throughout most part of his custodial supervision, the Committee also finds a separate violation of article 10 (3) of the Covenant. 8.9 Furthermore, the Committee takes note of the author’s claims regarding his alleged ill-treatment under articles 7 and 10(1) of the Covenant and the information submitted to it by the State party in response to these allegations, namely that the author was held in conditions that differ from those of general correctional centre conditions, that there is no evidence that the author had been ill-treated by staff and that his placement in protective custody had been warranted by security concerns. The Committee considers, however, that these factors do not take away the force of the uncontested allegation regarding the negative impact of the author’s custodial supervision whose minimum term remained unknown throughout the term of its effect. Furthermore, the mere fact that the author preferred being isolated instead of placed with ordinary prisoners with an increased exposure to insults does not necessarily render his isolation lawful but is rather indicative of the limited nature of his choices in a prison environment that did not correspond to his pathology. In such circumstances, the Committee considers that the combination of the inappropriate conditions of the author’s detention for most of its duration and its indefinite duration in the absence of mandatory reviews in adversarial proceedings, have been cumulatively inflicting serious psychological harm upon him, and constitute treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In the light of this finding, the Committee will not examine the same claims under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 8.10 Lastly, the Committee notes the author’s claim under article 17(1) and 23 of the Covenant, in particular that he had limited contact with his family in Alice Springs Correctional Centre and that his opportunities further deteriorated by his transfer to Darwin. The Committee is mindful of the State party’s submission that in 2013, a total of eleven of the author’s family members were supported on multiple occasions to visit the author and while residing at the secure facility in Alice Springs, he was able to participate in programs with his sister. In this connection, the Committee first observes that there is no sufficient information before it to conclude that the circumstances of the author’s transfer to Darwin indeed placed a disproportionate burden on his family life in view of the fact that the author’s transfer seems to have purported the finding of a suitable facility for his therapeutic treatment as evidenced by his subsequent and gradual progress. The Committee therefore limits its examination to the period of the author’s detention at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. In this regard, the Committee observes that, as exemplified by the measures taken in 2013 and 2014, there have been some measures available in the State party’s arsenal to facilitate the author’s contact with his family. The Committee notes that such support was provided to the author at the time regardless of the State party’s objection that article 17 of the Covenant does not cover relationships that were non-existent at the time the alleged breach occurred. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that there is no information before it that any similar measures had been taken prior to 2013, even though these could have been particularly beneficial to the author. In the absence of any information concerning this particularly long period (from August 1995 to 2013), the Committee considers that the author’s grievances went beyond of what is inherent in detention and finds that there has been a violation of article 17 of the Covenant. In the light of this finding, the Committee will not examine the same claims under article 23 of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of articles 7, 9 (1) (4), 10 (3) and 17 of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This provision requires that States parties make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, the State party is under the obligation, inter alia, to provide adequate compensation and appropriate measures of satisfaction to the author for the violations suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. 11. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has 14