CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 5.14 The author considers that as a result of his wrongful conviction for an alleged use of drugs, he was confined to prison and deprived of leave for a period of six months. He was subsequently exonerated, but he received no apology or other remedy, and was instead referred to the Australian National Child Offender Register, which he considers particularly degrading and humiliating. 5.15 The author argues that at all times, he remained in custody, and that the conditions of his conditional release amount to a deprivation of liberty. Additionally, under section 37 of the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act, a new custodial supervision order with immediate effect could be imposed by the Review Board if it considered that the author had breached any of the conditions of his release, bypassing the usual legal processes applicable to persons without disabilities. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 23 February 2016, the State party submitted additional observations on the author’s comments, reiterating its view that the Committee’s temporal mandate applies in respect of events occurring on or after 19 September 2009. The State party does not consider that the facts of the present communication constitute a continuing violation. 40 6.2 The State party submits that the author has never been in civil detention since his release from custody on 10 January 2012, and that he has resided in the community since then. The author’s conditional release order is subject to regular review by the Review Board, which has been satisfied with the author’s compliance. The State party does not have any plans to cancel the author’s release order or to place him in custody. 6.3 The State party indicates that in 2015, Western Australia opened a disability justice centre to provide additional detention options for persons with disabilities who have been found unfit to stand trial. On 30 November 2015, the Mental Health Act 2014 came into force. It introduced protections in relation to the use of involuntary treatment powers, and new rights for families and carers. The Western Australian Government has also concluded the review of the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act and intends to table the final report and recommendations in 2016. Committee’s consideration of admissibility and the merits B. Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party submits four sets of arguments relating to the admissibility of the author’s claims under articles 1 and 2 (e), (d) and (f) of the Optional Protocol, which it will examine separately. 7.4 Firstly, the Committee notes that according to the State party, the author’s claims relating to the events occurring before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol should be held inadmissible ratione temporis. The Committee also notes the author’s argument that 40 12 The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee in communication No. 2021/2010, E.Z. v. Kazakhstan, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.4.