Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2365/2014 minor, who met with their wards regularly and provided individual help. All programmes and trainings were tailored to individuals’ age, gender, religious background and needs. National authorities carefully monitored quality of the services provided by the private companies. 4.6 The State party further submits that the authors made only general allegations under article 10 of the Covenant about their conditions of detention on Christmas Island, without providing any evidence or supporting information. The State party contends that all individuals detained in immigration facilities are treated with respect and that conditions of detention are appropriate. Several private contractors ensure wellbeing of individuals in detention. They provide communication services (e.g. access to computers, Internet, television, libraries), educational programmes (including primary and secondary education), mental health enhancement activities, access to religious practice, legal advice, health care, and other services. The State party emphasises that all individuals in detention, and specifically minors, are provided with access to qualified mental health professionals to monitor and avoid deterioration of their mental state. All individuals entering immigration detention are subject to mental health screening within 72 hours of their arrival. Subsequent medical evaluations take place after six, twelve, eighteen months and regularly thereafter. Special programmes are introduced for vulnerable individuals (e.g. victims of torture). The State party further notes, that whilst on Christmas Island, the authors were housed in Alternative Places of Detention or so-called Construction camps. These camps are used to meet specific needs of individuals which cannot be fulfilled in regular immigration detention centres or community detention. They include facilities-based forms of detention (e.g. immigration residential housing) and specifically designated places in the broader community. The State party further notes that immigration detention is subject to regular review to ensure that individuals’ detention arrangements remain appropriate. In the light of the abovementioned factors, the State party concludes that the authors’ conditions of detention were adequate in compliance with requirements of article 10 of the Covenant. 4.7 The State party notes that the authors have failed to substantiate their claims under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. They did not submit sufficient evidence to show that their detention was in violation of domestic law or otherwise arbitrary. The State party notes that all authors were detained in accordance with procedure provided by the Migration Act. Their detention on Christmas Island was as short as possible. Alternatives measures, length and conditions of detention were subject to regular administrative review. The State party submits that review of immigration detention (including review of conditions of detention) is conducted by case managers from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The latter has an obligation to investigate a person’s case, after he or she has spent two years in immigration detention. The case managers from the department perform monthly reviews of individual detention placements, including their lawfulness. The State party notes, that the authors’ individual cases were handled by officers from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in full accordance with national law and in shortest time possible. 4.8 The State party notes that the authors’ claims under article 9 (4) of the Covenant are unsubstantiated and, therefore, inadmissible. Referring to the travaux preparatoires to the Covenant, the State party notes that ‘lawfulness of detention’ implies compliance with national law of a State. Broader interpretation, that includes compliance with international law standards, would have undoubtedly be reflected by the drafters. The State party notes that the authors had access to the judicial review of the legality of their detention in accordance with section 256 of the Migration Act and section 75 (iii) of the Australian Constitution. 4.9 The State party submits that the authors did not provide any specific information to substantiate their claims under articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant about inadequate conditions on the mainland. Furthermore, as indicated above, all possible measures of protection were provided to the authors in compliance with requirements of the Covenant. 4.10 The State party further refers to the situation of B.A.A. who, as claimed by the counsel, was separated from his brother, who had arrived to Australia 12 months earlier, in violation of articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant. The State party recalls that B.A.A. was transferred from Christmas Island in December 2014. Initially he was placed in an Alternative Place of 5