CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 achieve the Act’s objectives relying on reasonable and objective criteria that are not linked to disability. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 25 June 2015, the author submitted additional information. He submits that he has been in civil detention for more than 13 years and remains subjected to restrictions and to deprivation of liberty. 5.2 The author rejects the State party’s characterization of the temporal scope of the Committee’s mandate. He refers to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, according to which “the Committee … cannot consider alleged violations of the Covenant which occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, unless the violations complained of continue after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol. A continuing violation is to be interpreted as an affirmation, after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, by act or by clear implication, of the previous violations”. 37 The author considers that the same interpretation should apply to his case. 5.3 The author considers that his detention is arbitrary because it is based on his disability, in violation of article 14 (1) (b). If he did not have a disability, he could not have been placed in indefinite detention. If acquitted, he would have been released from custody immediately and unconditionally. 5.4 The author submits that his detention is arbitrary because: (a) it is subject to the discretion of the Government, given that pursuant to sections 24 and 35 of the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act, once a custodial supervision order is made, the person is detained until released by an order of the Governor of Western Australia. The Governor exercises discretion in accordance with the recommendations of the Executive Council, which in turn acts on the advice of the Minister of Health; (b) it is unjust, given that the author has not been convicted for the offences with which he was charged and has not had the opportunity to properly test the evidence on which the charges were based; (c) it is disproportionate, given that if the author had been found guilty of the offences with which he was charged, he would have been sentenced to 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment, after which he would have been released unconditionally; and (d) it is punitive, given that the author required and continues to require social support and assistance. However, his incarceration and his continuing civil detention do not reflect the “least invasive” or “least restrictive” ways of dealing with his needs. 5.5 The author submits that the conditions of his detention in Greenough Regional Prison were exactly the same as those of convicted prisoners, while he was supposed to be detained solely for the purpose of treatment, care and rehabilitation. That punitive perspective was also reflected in the intervention of the Review Board, which recommended to the Minister for Health that the author’s detention continue for 9 years from the time the Court made him subject to a custodial supervision order on 11 March 2003, up to the time he was made subject to a conditional release order on 10 January 2012, regardless of the fact that the alleged victims of the offences had publicly withdrawn their initial statements against the author. 5.6 The author considers that according to the State party, his detention was temporary, pending the availability of a place in a specialized facility. No places became available and his prolonged incarceration with convicted persons was humiliating and degrading. The author notes that the Western Australian Government suspended its decision to build two so-called “disability justice centres”. It instead built one such facility with the capacity to 37 10 The State party refers to Human Rights Committee, communication No. 520/1992, Könye and Könye v. Hungary, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 7 April 1994, para. 6.4