CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 ongoing counselling with the mental health team and supportive counselling to treat posttraumatic stress disorder. One author was placed on the psychological support programme when concerns of self-harm were raised and following attempts at self-harm. 6.19 Contrary to the assertions made by the authors, the physical conditions of detention are adequate and subject to continual improvement and individuals are given sufficient opportunity to participate in recreational activities. From time to time, incidents involving unrest or violence have occurred, for which Serco has extensive policies in place. The authors have not referred to any incidents of unrest or violence that they have witnessed personally. Restraints are used by Serco only as a last resort and strict limits apply to the level of force that may be deployed. 6.20 The Committee cannot conclude that the authors have been personally subjected to treatment in breach of articles 7 and 10 (1) in the absence of specific allegations regarding each particular author. Remedies 6.21 Given that the authors’ rights under the Covenant have not been violated, none of the remedies sought by them should be recommended by the Committee. It would not be appropriate for the Committee to recommend that the authors be released, given that they are judged to be a threat for national security, and in the light of the recent appointment of an independent reviewer. If the Committee concludes that Australia has breached particular rights, the State party requests that remedies other than release be recommended. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 24 September 2013, the authors provided the following comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. Article 9 (1) 7.2 The authors contest the State party’s argument that their detention is lawful. The legality under article 9 (1) must be interpreted not only with respect to domestic law, but rather to such law as applies to a given jurisdiction, which comprises both domestic and international law, including the Covenant. Detention on security grounds is unlawful under article 9 (1), because the domestic procedures for review are manifestly inadequate. There is, for example, no right to reasons or minimum disclosure of evidence that would enable an affected person to exercise effectively any right to seek review; no independent decision maker of the primary decision, but rather the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation acting as secret investigator, judge and jury; no binding periodic review by the primary decision maker; and no binding merits review. Judicial review is practically unavailable or ineffective; disclosure in the review of even a summary of the security case against a person cannot be compelled. 7.3 The authors maintain that mandatory detention upon arrival is arbitrary. This is particularly so where the duration of detention between their arrival and receipt of their adverse security assessments was so protracted (between 13 months and two years). The State party has not explained the need for this period to be so long. 7.4 The State party makes no attempt to demonstrate that it considered alternatives to detention in each individual case, or to explain why particular alternatives are unsuitable given the degree of risk posed by each person. It has provided no evidence regarding its efforts to resettle the authors elsewhere and, specifically, regarding how many countries have been approached to take each of them, how many countries have refused to accept them or how regularly such requests are made. 13