CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 by the High Court in favour of the plaintiff could potentially result in the release from detention of the authors affected by the judgment. 4.7 In a recent case (Plaintiff M47/2012 v. Director General of Security and Ors) the High Court considered the reasons for the adverse security assessment that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation had provided to Plaintiff M47. The Court held that the refusal to grant Plaintiff M47 a protection visa had not been made in accordance with the law because a regulation that prevented the granting of a protection visa to a refugee subject to an adverse security assessment was invalid. Therefore, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship would need to reconsider the plaintiff’s application for a protection visa. The Court found the plaintiff’s continuing detention valid for the purpose of determining his application for a protection visa. 4.8 The State party disagrees with the authors’ contention that judicial review proceedings are not worth pursuing and maintains that it is possible to challenge before the High Court the lawfulness of detention of persons in the authors’ circumstances. Inadmissibility ratione materiae 4.9 With reference to article 9 (1), the State party disputes the admissibility of any claims regarding the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in the communication. Such claims are inadmissible ratione materiae as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 4.10 Claims under article 9 (2) are also inadmissible ratione materiae, as the authors were not “arrested”. The term “arrest” should be understood as referring to the act of seizing a person in connection with the commission or alleged commission of a criminal offence, and taking that person into custody. The ordinary meaning of the term “arrest” does not extend to the placing of an asylum seeker into administrative detention for the purposes of undertaking health, security and identity checks. Lack of substantiation 4.11 The State party considers that the authors’ claims under articles 7 and 10 (1) should be declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation. It considers that the authors made general submissions about the conditions of detention and did not provide any evidence indicating that the treatment of each or any author in detention has risen to a level of humiliation or debasement beyond the fact of detention itself in their own particular circumstances. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 24 September 2013, the authors provided comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. The authors withdrew their claims in relation to article 9 (2). 5.2 The authors consider the appointment of the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments an improvement, but submit that the measure remains procedurally inadequate. First, the Independent Reviewer’s findings are not binding — they are only recommendations addressed to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Second, there remains no minimum degree of disclosure that must be met in all cases, which limits a refugee’s ability to respond effectively. In a given case, the Organisation may still determine that it is not possible to disclose any meaningful reasons to a person and this will also prevent disclosure by the Independent Reviewer. Refugees thus may lawfully continue to receive no notice of allegations prior to decisions being made. Furthermore, the authors state that the Independent Reviewer is not a statutory office holder and has no entrenched legal powers. 8