CCPR/C/132/D/2365/2014 Advance unedited version authors arrived on Christmas Island on different dates between July and November 2013 as unaccompanied minors. In accordance with the national policy at the time, they were all placed in immigration detention. They spent between 13 and 18 months in immigration detention before being transferred to community detention centres on the mainland. The Committee considers that the State party has not demonstrated on an individual basis that the authors' continuous and protracted detention was justified for such an extended period of time. The State party has also not demonstrated that other less intrusive measures could not have achieved the same end of compliance with the State party’s need to ensure that the authors would be available for removal. Specifically, it has not been shown that the authors, who were minors at the time, could not have been transferred earlier to community detention centres, which are more tailored to meet specific needs of vulnerable individuals. For all these reasons, the Committee concludes that placing the authors, as unaccompanied minors, in immigration detention was arbitrary and contrary to article 9 (1) and to article 24 of the Covenant. 8.6 The Committee also notes the authors’ claims that they did not have any effective domestic remedy to challenge legality of their detention before domestic courts contrary to requirements of article 9 (4) of the Covenant. The Committee considers the State party’s argument that the authors had access to a judicial review of legality of their detention in accordance with domestic law. At the same time, the State party argues that review of ‘lawfulness of detention’ within the meaning of article 9 (4) of the Covenant implies only compliance with national law of a State. 8.7 The Committee recalls that judicial review of the lawfulness of detention under article 9 (4), is not limited to mere compliance of the detention with domestic law but must include the possibility to order release if the detention is incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant, in particular those of article 9(1). The Committee further notes its previous jurisprudence concerning review of detention of non-citizens without valid entry documentation in Australia6. In particular, it previously established that the scope of domestic judicial review of immigration detention was insufficiently broad to examine an individual’s detention in substantive terms. Furthermore, relevant national jurisprudence showed that even a successful legal challenge of detention could not necessarily lead to release from arbitrary detention.7 The State party has not provided relevant legal precedents showing the effectiveness of an application before the national courts in similar situations. Moreover, it has not demonstrated the availability of this remedy for the authors and has not shown that national courts have the authority to make individualized rulings on the justification for each author’s detention. Therefore, the Committee does not see a ground to depart from its wellestablished approach and considers that the facts in the present case involve a violation of article 9 (4). 9. 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 article 9 (1) and (4) and article 24 of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors 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, to provide the authors with 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 review its migration legislation and policies to ensure their conformity with the requirements of articles 9 and 24 of the Covenant. 11. 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 or not 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 6 7 10 regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration in countries of origin, transit, destination and return (2017), para. 8. See, F.K.A.G. et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/108/D/2094/2011), para. 9.6. Ibid.