CCPR/C/132/D/2900/2016 Advance unedited version deficiencies, the 2003 decision had been in line with the applicable provisions of the law, the Committee observes that as a result of this interpretation, there was never a minimum duration set for the author’s custodial supervision and the only mandatory review occurred in 2003. The Committee takes note of this information that reports still have to be submitted to the court at regular intervals, it is nonetheless dependant on the court whether to conduct a review and up to that point, the procedures are not adversarial, lacking important guarantees of habeas corpus under article 9(4) of the Covenant, such as access to information and the right to challenge evidence. Even though hearings of evidence seem to have taken place in the present case, these date back only to 2014 and nothing has been put before the Committee to conclude that the author had been heard on these occasions. 8.6 As regards the place of the author’s detention, the Committee concurs with the position of the European Court of Human Rights requiring a link between the reason for the deprivation of liberty and the place and conditions of detention. 28 In this respect, the Committee underlines that the author was detained in high security prison facilities from August 1995 to 7 February 2017, except for a short period between May 2013 and January 2014. Although the Committee recognizes the importance of a fair balance between the interests of the individual and public safety and that experts have regularly informed the Supreme Court of the author’s situation, it is not possible for the Committee to accept the State party’s argument that the author in the present case was receiving appropriate care at all times, even when not placed in secure care facilities undisputedly better suited to accommodate his needs. The Committee notes that the NT Supreme Court, in its 2003 decision, is particularly clear on this point when it finds that the resources available at Alice Springs Correctional Centre were not appropriate for the custody and care of the author. This had been further confirmed by the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2014. While the Committee notes with great appreciation the improvement of the conditions of detention whenever the author was placed in a secure care facility and the efforts of all those involved in the author’s care, including the implementation of a support plan eventually leading the Supreme Court to change his custodial supervision to a non-custodial one, it considers at the same time that these developments may not account for the unlawfulness of those periods spent in a maximum security prison environment during such a long term. The Committee observes that the alleged lack of resources may not exempt the State party from its obligations in this respect. 8.7 The Committee refers to its constant jurisprudence that, it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence, unless it can be established that such evaluation was clearly arbitrary or otherwise amounted to a denial of justice. However, on the basis of the material before it, the Committee is of the view that the State party failed to demonstrate that the otherwise legitimate aims of the author’s custodial supervision could not have been achieved by less intrusive means than his continued detention in high security prison facilities, particularly as the State party had a continuing obligation under article 10(3) of the Covenant to adopt meaningful measures for the reformation of the author throughout the nearly 20 years during which he was in high security prison environment. In view of the above, the Committee deems that the author’s respective terms of detention, had been arbitrary and as such, run counter to the guarantees of article 9(1) of the Covenant. The Committee therefore concludes for a violation of article 9(1) of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Committee refers to its finding in Rameka29 and considers that the author’s inability to challenge the existence of substantive justification for his continued detention for preventive reasons has been in violation of his right under article 9(4) of the Covenant. 8.8 In the light of these findings and with due regard to the fact that the author’s claims, to a large extent, relate to the insufficiency of services purporting reformation and 28 29 Court found however that this is not a problem because a compulsory review had already taken place as per the transitional provisions of the Amending Act. See e.g. L.B. v. Belgium (application no. 22831/08) para 93; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom (application no. 8225/78) para. 44. Tai Wairiki Rameka et al. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/79/D/1090/2002), para 7.2. 13