CCPR/C/132/D/2900/2016 Advance unedited version 6.2 First of all, the State party notes that on 7 January 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that the author’s custodial supervision order be amended to a non-custodial supervision order. Accordingly, in February 2019, the author moved into a three-bedroom house in an inner suburb in Darwin with disability support workers. The author continues to receive 24-hour support. 6.3 The State party maintains that the author had at least one available effective domestic remedy which he has not exhausted regarding his discrimination claims. It further contests that the author has been incarcerated in a maximum security prison for over 20 years, with no prospect of release. In this respect, the State party reiterates that as soon as alternatives were available, the author was moved out of maximum security prison. It underlines that neither the secure care facility in Alice Springs nor the Cottages are considered to be a maximum security prisons. As concerns the author’s current situation, he is no longer being held in custody. Regarding his appeal rights, the State party reaffirms that, contrary to the author’s statement, a supervised person, or his guardian, are able to apply to the Court to vary or revoke a custodial supervision order under s 43ZD of the NT Criminal Code. This is in addition to the right to appeal under s 406(3). Furthermore, the State party notes that while an annual report to the court does not constitute a formal review, the Court may conduct a review if it considers it appropriate to do so. 6.4 The State party maintains its position that article 10 (3) does not apply to the author’s situation and submits that in any event, it has taken steps to support the author’s rehabilitation well before the communication’s transmittal to the State party. 19 6.5 As concerns the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant, the State party notes that the Committee’s views in Miller and Caroll do not lend support to the author’s claim. It recalls that, contrary to the authors of the cited case, the author of the present case has not been subject to preventative detention following the cessation of a punitive term of imprisonment and reiterates that when the author was detained, he was held in conditions that differed from general correctional centre conditions and was provided with substantial resources to assist his rehabilitation. Referring to the information provided above, it further rejects the author’s statement that no court has assessed the ongoing risks posed by the author. 6.6 Regarding articles 7 and 10(1) of the Covenant, the State party submits extensive documentation to substantiate its position that the conditions in which the author was held were human and refers back to the relevant parts of its previous observations. 6.7 In regards to articles 17(1) and 23(1) of the Covenant, it maintains that article 17 is not intended to cover relationships that were non-existent at the time the alleged breach occurred. 20 The State party contests the author’s assertion that his guardian has been effectively frozen out of decision making concerning the author’s situation. The Solicitor for the Northern Territory provides regular information to the author’s legal representative at North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. The Office of Disability in the Northern Territory Department of Health most often liaises with the Public Guardian on the understanding that he will inform and communicate with the Community Guardian and make joint decisions as required. It further rejects the claims regarding the author’s move to Darwin and maintains that detention inherently has an impact on a person’s ability to engage with friends and family but the State party has not arbitrarily or unlawfully interfered with the author’s family life in the present case. As evidenced by his transition from a custodial to a non-custodial supervision order, he has continued to excel since his transfer to Darwin into accommodation more suited to his complex mental health and behavioural needs, while being in the least restrictive environment as practically possible. 19 20 In order to implement the Supreme Court’s orders, in 2003, an individual management plan was developed for the author. The author was then transferred from Protection, to the general population of the prison and then to the secure care facility. In 2004 and 2005, he was managed each week-day by the Positive Behaviour Support Unit, and was participating in activities including socialising with other inmates, visits from relatives, and daily walks. The author demonstrated improvement in the management of behavioural triggers, resulting in fewer incidents of physical aggression. The State party refers to Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2005) 394 [32] and A.S. et al v Canada, (CCPR/C/12/D/68/1980). 9