CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 7.12 If the Committee is unable to find violations of article 7 because of insufficient evidence, it is still open to the Committee to find a violation of article 10 (1), because the authors, as a group, have experienced ill-treatment in their circumstances of indefinite detention under adverse physical and health conditions. Remedies 7.13 The authors disagree with the State party’s position in respect of remedies and reiterate their initial requests. Additional submissions by the parties 8.1 On 13 July 2015, the State party submitted that V.N. and C.S. had been released from immigration detention on 22 December 2014 and 1 July 2015, respectively, following a qualified assessment and a non-prejudicial assessment.6 8.2 On 3 November 2015, the State party submitted that F.J. and T.S. had been released from immigration detention on 2 August 2015 and 17 September 2015, respectively. 8.3 On 10 February 2016, the State party submitted that T.T. had been released from immigration detention on 1 December 2015. 8.4 The authors maintain their previous legal submission. As they have been released from detention, they now no longer claim this remedy but maintain their requests in all other respects, including compensation for the period for which they were detained. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.3 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, as the authors did not seek judicial review of the decision regarding their detention and the basis for their security assessment. The State party adds in this respect that the High Court precedent in Al-Kateb v. Godwin, stating that indefinite detention of an applicant who could not be deported was authorized by the Migration Act, is currently being challenged before the High Court by an applicant who is in the same situation as the authors in the present communication and that a decision is still pending. The authors submit that the High Court 6 The State party provided the following additional information on terminology: (a) a qualified security assessment is an assessment in which the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation communicates information relevant to security that is or could be prejudicial to the interests of the individual, but does not make a prejudicial recommendation in relation to taking prescribed administrative action; (b) an adverse security assessment is an assessment that contains (i) any opinion or advice, or any qualification of any opinion or advice, or any information, that is or could be prejudicial to the interests of the person; and (ii) a recommendation that prescribed administrative action be taken or not be taken in respect of the person, being a recommendation the implementation of which would be prejudicial to the interests of the person; and (c) a non-prejudicial security assessment is furnished when the Organisation has no security-related concerns. 15