Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2365/2014 they lacked appropriate clothing. The State party did not explain how the authors personally benefited from the programmes and services available on Christmas Island. 5.6 The authors argue that their detention was arbitrary in violation of article 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant. They note that there were less restrictive means to achieve compliance with national immigration laws, rather than detaining the authors on Christmas Island for such a long period of time. While their detention could have been in compliance with national law, it was not necessary and proportionate. The authors argue that any detention in excess of six months is prima facie arbitrary. By April 2014, the authors have been detained on Christmas Island for five to eight months. The extended detention was not duly assessed. The authors note that the State party does not demonstrate individual grounds for their detention. Furthermore, and the authors lacked proper avenue of review of their detention. The authors were unable to challenge lawfulness of their detention before Australian courts. Even if they had access to judicial review, it would be ineffective, as it is unable to order their release on the grounds of violation of provisions of the Covenant. 5.7 The authors reiterate their claims under articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. They indicate that a number of them had family members living across Australia. Contrary to requirements of article 17 of the Covenant, the authors were separated from their families. Furthermore, separation of B.A.A. from his brother was arbitrary. Phone calls and short-term visits were insufficient to comply with international standards. Moreover, return of A.R. to a detention centre was inadequate to address his mental problems and needs. The authors reiterate that alleged violations of substantive provisions of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated. The State party has violated article 2 of the Covenant. The authors are still vulnerable and require protection from possible transfer to a regional processing centre. 5.8 Finally, the authors provide medical documents, personal statements and other information. The State party’s additional comments 6.1 In a note verbale dated 31 July 2019, the State party submitted additional information to the Committee. It submits that the comments of the authors of 25 October 2016 have not provided any information capable to substantiate their claims. The authors rely on vague and generalized assertions, without any reference to specific facts and circumstances. The State party therefore generally reiterates positions expressed in its observations of 22 June 2016. Furthermore, the State party provides update on the authors’ legal status. This information has been included into the Factual background part of the present Views. 6.2 The State party notes that six authors have been granted a Safe Heaven Enterprise visas. Four of them are holding Bridging visas. One author has voluntarily returned to Afghanistan. There are no plans to transfer any of the authors to a regional processing center. 6.3 The State party notes that the authors have indicated that facilities available on the Christmas Island were inadequate and the authors’ detention was not properly assessed. However, they did not provide any specific facts and evidence to support these claims. The State party argues, that the authors tries to shift the burden of proof onto the Government by requesting it to disprove unsubstantiated assertions. 6.4 With respect to the authors’ claims about violations occurred in the mainland Australia, the State party recalls its previous submissions and notes that neither of these claims is supported by evidence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7