CCPR/C/132/D/2900/2016 Advance unedited version 1995 and 2002 for up to 23 hours per day. Although he had been indeed kept isolated from the main prison population for an extended period, his segregation was necessary due to security concerns following a number of violent incidents involving the author and other prisoners. During this term, he was able to interact with other inmates on protection, and had recreational periods for 2-4 hours per day.15 Even though the author was at times against his removal from the Protection Unit, in 2002, he was eventually relocated upon the recommendation of medical practitioners who became concerned about his mental deterioration given his lack of mixing with others. As a result, the author was moved into the High Support Unit, described as offering a safe, predictable environment with higher staff ratio and more flexibility around security conditions. Accordingly, the State party is of the view that the conditions of the author’s detention and his treatment do not constitute a violation of articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. 4.10 Regarding the alleged violation of articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant, the State party asserts that the author has not provided any information or any evidence about his level of family engagement or interaction prior to his detention. Similarly, none of the evidence provided by the author demonstrates that Australia has arbitrarily or unlawfully interfered with his family life, nor failed to protect his family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society. In the absence of further evidence revealing treatment contrary to articles 17(1) and 23(1), the author has failed to substantiate this allegation and should be declared inadmissible. 4.11 Regarding the merits of the above claims, the State party notes that records indicate that the author had scarce contact with his family, due to his former institutional admissions, even prior to his detention in Alice Springs Correctional Centre. Nevertheless, in 2013, a total of eleven of the author’s family members were supported on multiple occasions to visit him at Alice Springs Correctional Centre. In 2014, when the author was residing at the secure care facility, he participated in kangaroo tail cook-ups that his sister also attended. 16 Following the author’s initial reunification with family, he reportedly had limited contact with his family in 2015 whilst he was still in Alice Springs. Since 2005, the author also had contact with his fellow countrymen through the Elders Visiting Program. Accordingly, to the extent that there has been an interference with the author’s right to family life during his time at Alice Springs, it should be deemed lawful under articles 17(1) and 23 of the Covenant. Regarding the author’s family life in Darwin Correctional Centre, the State party notes that the author��s transfer to Darwin had been necessitated by his condition and as such, it must be deemed lawful and reasonable in the circumstances. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the author had had limited contact with his family members even before his transfer to Darwin, his relocation did not impose on him an excessive burden within the meaning of the cited articles. 4.12 Regarding the author’s claim under article 27 of the Covenant, the State party argues that while it acknowledges the centrality of country and connection to the land of indigenous peoples’ culture, these considerations cannot override the application of criminal law. In any event, the State party notes that continuous efforts have been made to improve the author’s situation in this respect. Notably, community access, and in particular access to cultural activities, is a key component of the author’s program. To the extent that the author’s rights to enjoy his culture and practice his language have been limited by the terms of his detention, this limitation was lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportionate. Nevertheless, the State party reiterates that, upon the author’s request, the NT Department of Health is currently considering transferring him back to central Australia in order to, inter alia, reunite the author with his Country provided that this is consistent with the need to effectively regulate his behaviours. The State party therefore considers that the author’s claims lack sufficient substantiation and should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 15 16 On 20 July 2018, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. The State party accepts that this is less than the time allowed for other prisoners. However, the author’s sister lost interest over time and the cook-ups were discontinued. 7