CCPR/C/132/D/2900/2016 Advance unedited version enjoyment of the guarantees enshrined in this provision is of special importance to them on account of their condition. The Committee is therefore of the view that the author’s claim under article 10 (3) is not incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 23 7.6 Lastly, the Committee takes note of the State party’s submission stating that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under articles 7, 10(1), 17(1), 23(1), 26 and 27 of the Covenant. As to the author’s claims regarding the conditions of his detention, including the lack of access to adequate rehabilitation programs, the Committee notes that for the great part of his custodial supervision, the author was detained in a maximum security prison facility and that he presented a prima facie case as regards his allegation that his detention in a prison environment may not have been in line with the human rights standards stemming from the cited articles. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claims under articles 7 and 10(1) have been sufficiently substantiated. 7.7 As regards the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the author’s complaint under article 26 in conjunction with article 2(1) of the Covenant, the Committee underlines that the author was subject to the impugned laws on the ground that he had allegedly committed criminal offences, however, he could not stand trial owing to his mental condition. The Committee notes that none of this has been contested by the author. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that not all differentiation is to be considered discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. Any determination about discrimination requires a comparison with persons who are similarly situated. Given the differences of the situation of persons with mental disabilities in a criminal procedure context, the fact alone that specific domestic laws have been applied to the author is not sufficient to conclude that the author presented a prima facie case of discrimination for the purposes of article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee further notes that the author’s claims in this respect are intimately linked to his complaints under articles 7, 9 and 10 of the Covenant and will therefore examine them under these articles. The Committee therefore considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 26 in conjunction with article 2 of the Covenant and finds it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.8 Regarding the author’s claims under articles 17(1) and 23(1) of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated that there may have been an interference with his family life that goes beyond the burden that is inherent in detention, in as much as it concerns the period of his detention prior to his transfer to Darwin Correctional Centre. As regards his minority rights under article 27 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author failed to establish a prima facie case in that the State party had less intrusive means to achieve the aims of his transfer and that the increase of burden on his minority rights went beyond of what is inherent in detention. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim under article 27 of the Covenant and his allegations are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.9 The Committee observes that the State party did not contest the admissibility of the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant on any grounds. 7.10 In view of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the author’s allegations under articles 7, 9, 10 (1) (3), 17 (1) and 23 (1) of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds with their consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 Regarding the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the author’s claim that his detention had been arbitrary because for the major part of his detention, the authorities have failed to provide him with suitable accommodation in a 23 See, e.g. Robert John Fardon v. Australia (CCPR/C/98/D/1629/2007), para. 7.4; Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Switzerland (CCPR/C/CHE/CO/4) paras. 38 and 39. 11