CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 5.7 Regarding the Plaintiff S138 case, the authors inform the Committee that it was discontinued with the consent of the parties on 13 June 2013 because the applicants were released from detention. The Court made no decision on the merits. Therefore the challenge to the lawfulness of indefinite detention is no longer before the Court and the earlier decision upholding indefinite detention (Al-Kateb) remains the law. 5.8 Concerning the State party’s objection to the admissibility of allegations regarding violations of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the authors argue that they are not requesting the Committee to find direct or autonomous breaches of that Convention. Rather, they request the Committee to interpret article 9 (1) of the Covenant in accordance with refugee law, which, in the present communication, should be considered as lex specialis. 5.9 The authors have submitted sufficient information for purposes of admissibility regarding claims under articles 7 and 10 and can submit more. Where reports examine certain conditions in detention that apply in the same, or a comparable, way to all detainees, it is open to the Committee to reasonably infer that the objectively established conditions of detention must necessarily have an impact on an affected class of detainees at large. If the general standards, facilities and services in detention are inadequate, they will necessarily be inadequate for all those who are detained there. Each author is willing to provide personal statements detailing their experience of detention and its impact upon them. Further psychiatric reports for various authors are also available upon request. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In its observations dated 21 May 2013, the State party argues that the authors’ claims are without merit for the reasons described below. Article 9 (1) 6.2 The authors are unlawful non-citizens detained under section 189 of the Migration Act. The State party therefore considers that their detention is lawful. The High Court of Australia has found the pertinent provisions of the Migration Act to be constitutionally valid. Asylum seekers are placed in immigration detention if they fall within one of the following categories: (a) unauthorized arrivals, for management of health, identity and security risks to the community; (b) unlawful non-citizens who present unacceptable risks to the community; and (c) unlawful non-citizens who repeatedly refuse to comply with their visa conditions. 6.3 The length and conditions of detention, including the appropriateness of both the accommodation and the services provided, are subject to regular review. Detention is not limited by established time frames, but is dependent on individualized assessments of risks to the community. Those risk assessments are completed by government agencies as expeditiously as possible. The determining factor is not the length of the detention but whether the grounds for the detention are justifiable. 6.4 The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has individually assessed each author and determined, in application of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, that in all cases granting a permanent visa would constitute a risk for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Posing security threats to Australia and Australians, including through politically motivated violence, promotion of community violence or threats to the territorial and border integrity of Australia; (b) Providing any organization(s) to which they belong with a safe haven from which to conduct attacks against their Government either in Australia or overseas; and/or 10