CCPR/C/132/D/2900/2016 Advance unedited version State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 25 April 2017, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. The State party provides the Committee with a detailed description of the impugned law, confirmed the facts of the case and submits some additional information. 4.2 It informs that the author’s custodial supervision order has regularly been before the Supreme Court, for periodic reviews. 10 The State party further acknowledges that until secure care facilities became operational in April 2013, there was no other “appropriate place”, apart from a correctional facility, within the meaning of the Amending Act. At the same time, the State party notes that the Supreme Court’s supervision and orders relating to the care and custody of the author were at all times consistent with experts’ recommendations. 4.3 The State party confirms that following a psychiatrics’ assessment in 2015, the author was transferred to Darwin Correctional Centre and began staged transition to the Cottages, becoming a full-time resident at that therapeutic facility on 7 February 2017.11 The author’s periodic report dated 24 May 2017 found that, since moving to the less restrictive environment at the Cottages, the author presented as a model resident with exemplary behaviour. Nevertheless, despite his strong progress, the 2017 periodic report did not recommend his transfer to a less restrictive setting until a complete review of his risk profile was completed. The NT Department of Health was considering, however, the author’s suitability to return to the Alice Spring secure care facility for the purpose of reuniting him with family and country. 4.4 Regarding the admissibility and merits of the complaint, the State party first submits that the author’s claims under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant. 4.5 In relation to the author’s claims under article 10 (3) read in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, the State party contends that the author’s claims are incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant because article 10 (3) concerns convicted persons only; however, the author was found not guilty and has a different legal status to convicted persons.12 In this connection, it notes that supervised persons receive a higher level of treatment, and are monitored by a higher ratio of prison officers than convicted prisoners. It further submits that the author receives significant clinical and therapeutic treatment, together with mental health and disability support. The State party further argues that the author’s claims regarding the lack of any rehabilitative purpose of his detention are also inadmissible for lacking sufficient substantiation. In this respect, the State party underlines that the medical evidence suggests that there are limited prospects for his reformation or social rehabilitation. Nonetheless, as stated in the author’s most recent periodic report, the NT Office of Disability continues to support the author on a daily basis to develop his independent functional living skills. 4.6 As regards the discriminatory aspect of the above claims, the State party is of the position that to the extent that any practices or policies were discriminatory, it was open to the author to make a complaint of discrimination to the NT Anti-Discrimination Commissioner under the NT Anti-Discrimination Act of 1992. The State party submits that, while acts done pursuant to legislation or a court order are exempt under the cited law, “it appears reasonably arguable” that it would apply to certain aspects of the author’s case as he was the recipient of goods, services and facilities. It is further submitted that the Commissioner has the power to make binding orders. Although the Commissioner also has an inquiry power to examine legislation, acts and practices, the State party accepts that, in 10 11 12 For example, hearings were held over the past four years regarding the author’s case on 2 June 2017, 19 May 2016, 16 February 2016, 19 November 2015, 9 October 2015, 9 September 2015, 28 July 2015, 20 April 2015, 7 October 2014, 25 June 2014, 27 May 2014 and 27 February 2014. The Cottages are another specialist forensic disability support facility located on the grounds of the Darwin Correctional Centre. The Cottages are used to support clients who need a higher level of support due to high risk behaviours. Similar to the Alice Springs secure care facility, the Cottages are also operated and managed by the NT Office of Disability. The Cottages are staffed 24 hours a day by disability support workers trained to support clients with disabilities. The State party refers to General Comment No. 21, para 10. 5