CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 7.5 Regarding the unavailability or ineffectiveness of the review of detention, the authors argue that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security enjoys only a power of recommendation and cannot provide an effective remedy in the form of a legally enforceable right to have an adverse security assessment overturned. In addition, the authors note that the Independent Reviewer enjoys only a power of recommendation and has no power at all to review immigration detention. Article 9 (2) 7.6 The authors withdraw their claims under article 9 (2). Article 9 (4) 7.7 If the authors’ detention is found by the Committee to be unlawful under article 9 (1) for not being necessary or proportionate, article 9 (4) will also be violated, as the Australian courts lack power to review the necessity of detention. As regards High Court review, the Court decides only about 100 cases per year, as the highest court of appeal and constitutional review in Australia. It is unrealistic to suggest that judicial review is effectively available to the authors when the caseload of the High Court is so small, many thousands of offshore entry persons are detained each year and the jurisdiction of other federal courts is excluded. Furthermore, preparing an application for the High Court requires extensive resources and legal representation that are simply not available to the authors. 7.8 Regarding the judicial review of security assessments, when the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation believes disclosure of information would prejudice national security, the courts will not overturn those assessments. In various other security cases, the courts have not compelled the disclosure of information assessed by the Organisation as prejudicial to security. Articles 7 and 10 (1) 7.9 A number of Australian independent institutions have repeatedly criticized the inadequacy of the conditions in all immigration detention centres and the impact they have on mental health. For instance, since the registration of the communication, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who has a statutory mandate to periodically review protracted cases of detention, has stated that protracted detention contributes to mental harm and is incompatible with the effective treatment of mental illness. He has also criticized the inadequacy of mental health services in detention. The continuing deterioration of the mental health of detainees is evidence that the health measures taken by the State party are insufficient to ensure the detainees’ safety where protracted detention itself is a medically untreatable cause of harm. 7.10 The authors provided a copy of a letter from the Director of the Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology dated 12 August 2012, in which the Director indicates that the treatment provided in the detention centres is limited and will not be able to reverse the detainees’ condition. Detention centres are not psychiatric facilities and are not designed or staffed to manage severe mental illness and disturbance. Appropriate care can be provided only in the community mental health system. 7.11 The following facts affect the determination of whether the authors’ detention is inhumane or degrading: (a) the authors are refugees entitled to special protection, where detention should be a last resort and for the shortest possible time; (b) most of the authors were traumatized by the experience of fleeing from or immediately after the conflict in northern Sri Lanka in 2009; (c) some of the authors have been diagnosed with mental illnesses and cannot be treated effectively while they remain in detention. 14