CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant, in particular those of article 9 (1).10 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the facts in the present case reveal a violation of article 9 (4). Claims under articles 7 and 10 (1) 10.6 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims under articles 7 and 10 (1) and the information submitted by the State party in this regard, including on the health care and mental support services provided to persons in immigration detention. The Committee considers, however, that these services do not take away the force of the uncontested allegations regarding the negative impact that prolonged indefinite detention, on grounds that the person cannot even be apprised of, can have on the mental health of detainees. These allegations are confirmed by medical reports concerning some of the authors. The Committee considers that the combination of the arbitrary character and indefinite nature of the authors’ protracted detention, the refusal to provide information and procedural rights to the authors and the difficult conditions of detention cumulatively inflicted serious psychological harm upon them, and constitute treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In the light of this finding the Committee will not examine the same claims under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 11. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the State party has violated the authors’ rights under articles 7 and 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant. 12. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, provide the authors with rehabilitation and adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. In this connection, the State party should revise its migration legislation to ensure its conformity with the requirements of articles 7 and 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant. 13. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the State party. 10 18 Communications No. 1014/2001, Baban v. Australia, Views adopted on 6 August 2003, para. 7.2; No. 1069/2002, Bakhtiyari v. Australia, Views adopted on 29 October 2003, para. 9.4; and Nos. 1255/2004, 1256/2004, 1259/2004, 1260/2004, 1266/2004, 1268/2004, 1270/2004 and 1288/2004, Shams et al. v. Australia, Views adopted on 20 July 2007, para. 7.3.