CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its observations dated 21 May 2013, the State party contests the admissibility of the communication and argues that all the claims are inadmissible. It states that the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments appointed by the Government has commenced reviewing adverse security assessments issued in relation to asylum seekers owed protection obligations who are in immigration detention, where applications for review were made. The Independent Reviewer examines all materials used by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, including any new material referred to the Organisation by the affected individual, and reports his or her findings to the AttorneyGeneral, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The Independent Reviewer also conducts periodic review of adverse security assessments every 12 months. Both the initial and periodic review mechanisms are available to the authors of the communication, thus providing them with access to an open and accountable decision-making process in relation to security assessments. 4.2 Given that the authors have been found to be refugees, they are owed protection obligations under international law and cannot be returned to their countries of origin. The Government of Australia is exploring solutions for them, including resettlement in a third country or safe return to their country of origin when the risk of harm no longer exists or when reliable and effective assurances can be received from the home country. The State party, however, considers that it is not appropriate for individuals who have been given an adverse security assessment to live in the Australian community while such solutions are sought. Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 4.3 With reference to articles 7, 9 (1) and (4) and 10 (1), the State party argues that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies. 4.4 The State party submits that all authors had the possibility to seek judicial review of their adverse security assessments and immigration detention in the Federal Court or High Court of Australia and, as part of the proceedings for judicial review, to seek information regarding the basis for the security assessment. The authors have not sought such review. 4.5 In Al-Kateb v. Godwin (2004), the High Court held by a narrow majority that the indefinite detention of a failed applicant for a protection visa who could not be deported was authorized by the Migration Act. This finding is currently being challenged before the High Court in the case of Plaintiff S138/2012 v. Director General of Security and Ors. Plaintiff S138 commenced litigation in the High Court in May 2012, challenging his adverse security assessment and the legality of his detention. The High Court will consider a range of issues, including: (a) Whether the continued detention of Plaintiff S138 is lawful and supported by the Migration Act. As part of this claim, the Court has been asked to consider the lawfulness of detention for the purpose of removal to a safe third country where there is no immediate prospect of such removal; (b) Whether the detention of the plaintiff is unconstitutional. The plaintiff argues that it is inherent in the separation of powers set out in the Constitution that long-term detention of a person is lawful only if ordered by a Court. 4.6 The above-mentioned case is relevant to the present communication because, if Plaintiff S138 is successful in the High Court, it could provide an effective remedy to the alleged violations raised by the authors under articles 7, 9 (1) and (4) and 10 (1). A finding 7