Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2365/2014 community detention on the mainland. On an unspecified date, the author requested to be transferred under his brother’s care, but, as the latter was minor at the time, the request was denied. In December 2014 the author was transferred from Christmas Island and initially was placed in an Alternative Pace of Detention for eight days. After that, the author was moved and reunited with his brother in a community detention centre. On an unspecified date, the author’s brother was released from the detention centre, when he turned 18 years old, and was granted a Bridging Visa. While staying on Christmas Island, B.A.A. had regular phone contacts with his brother who had been living close to the detention centre. He also had shortterm visits with him. The Committee notes the State party’s argument, that it was not possible to transfer guardianship over B.A.A. to his brother, while the latter was still a minor. After the author’s brother turned 18 years old, national authorities decided that it was in B.A.A.’s best interests to remain in community detention, as his brother was unable to provide all required services and appropriate living conditions. At the same time, national authorities attempted to facilitate family contacts to the possible extent. The Committee recognizes that there existed reasonable grounds not to transfer guardianship over B.A.A. to his brother. The author does not provide any evidence or arguments to substantiate that his brother was in a position to provide him with required assistance and caretaking. In addition, the Committee takes note of that fact that the author did not specify at what exact point in time after his arrival he had requested to be placed under the care of his brother. In light of these circumstances, and having noted the efforts undertaken by national authorities to establish and maintain personal contacts between the author and his brother, the Committee cannot conclude that the State party’s authorities have not acted with the best interests of the author in mind nor that they violated their duties under articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. 8.3 With regard to articles 9 (1) and 24 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the authors’ allegation that their immigration detention on Christmas Island was arbitrary and unreasonably prolonged, and conditions of detention and facilities on the Christmas Island were inadequate for their needs. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ detention occurred in accordance with procedures established by the Migration Act; their detention was as short as possible and regularly reviewed on an individual basis. 8.4 The Committee further notes, that neither party argues that the detention on Christmas Island was unlawful under the Australian law. At the same time, the notion of arbitrariness is not to be equated with “against the law” but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law. Detention in the course of proceedings for the control of immigration is not arbitrary per se, but the detention must be justified as being reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the light of the circumstances and reassessed as it extends in time. The decision must consider relevant factors case by case, and not be based on a mandatory rule for a broad category; must take into account less invasive means of achieving the same ends, such as reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions to prevent absconding; and must be subject to periodic re-evaluation and judicial review4. 8.5 In addition, the Committee reminds its General Comment No. 35: “Children should not be deprived of liberty, except as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, taking into account their best interests as a primary consideration with regard to the duration and conditions of detention, and also taking into account the extreme vulnerability and need for care of unaccompanied minors.”5 The Committee recalls that the 4 5 See, M.G.C. v. Australia (CCPR/C/113/D/1875/2009), para 11.5. General Comment No. 35 (2014), para. 18. Moreover, in its previous Conclusions Observations on Australia (2017, CCPR/C/AUS/CO/6, para. 37), , the Committee expressed its concern “about what appears to be the use of detention powers as a general deterrent against unlawful entry rather than in response to an individual risk, and the continued application of mandatory detention in respect of children and unaccompanied minors, despite the reduction in the number of children in immigration detention.” The Committee was “also concerned about poor conditions of detention in some facilities, the detention of asylum seekers together with migrants who have been refused a visa due to their criminal records, the high reported rates of mental health problems among migrants in detention, which allegedly correlate to the length and conditions of detention, and the reported increased use of force and physical restraint against migrants in detention.” See also Joint general comment No. 4 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 23 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on State obligations 9