A/HRC/31/57/Add.1 18. The Rapporteur also takes note of the fact that the High Court of Australia handed down a decision on the case of one of the passengers on 28 January 2015. 19. Notwithstanding, the Rapporteur concludes that the Government of Australia, by deporting the passengers in both of the groups, without giving them an opportunity to make a proper claim for protection (with possibly one exception), to places where they may face persecution, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, has violated its obligation under article 3 of the Convention against torture (CAT). (b) JUA 27/03/2015 Case No. AUS 3/2015 State reply: 27/11/2015 Allegation concerning severe detention conditions, including solitary confinement and inadequate medical care, of Mr. X, charged with attempted homicide and found not guilty due to mental impairment at the time of the offense. 20. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Australia for its reply, dated 27 November 2015, to the present communication. He regrets that the Government did not receive the communication in time and will endeavor to find out the reasons for the delay. The Rapporteur acknowledges the information provided in November 2015 by the Government on the treatment received by Mr. X throughout his detention and his transfer to Adelaide Remand Centre. In particular, the detailed information about various measures adopted vis-à-vis Mr. X over the last several years, the reasons behind them and the safeguards adopted in each case, contribute effectively to an understanding of the allegations. 21. In this context he recalls Rule 45 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (as amended on Nov. 5, 2015 by the General Assembly and readopted as the “Mandela Rules”), which provides that “[t]he imposition of solitary confinement should be prohibited in the case of prisoners with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures.” The Rapporteur would like to draw the Government’s attention to his interim report to the General Assembly of 5 August 2011 (A/66/268), where he defined solitary confinement, in accordance with the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement, as the physical and social isolation of individuals who are confined in their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. He observed that while solitary confinement for short periods of time may be justified under certain circumstances, with adequate and effective safeguards in place, the use of solitary confinement of any duration against persons who suffer from mental or psycho-social disabilities may never constitute a legitimate instrument of the State. 22. He urges the Government to ensure that Mr. X is housed in a facility where he can have meaningful human contact and receive adequate and effective psychiatric treatment. He also respectfully requests to be kept informed of future developments in the case of Mr. X. (c) JAL 01/06/2015 Case No. AUS 5/2015 State Reply: 03/08/2015 Allegations that Australian authorities violated the principle of non-refoulement in returning a group of 46 Vietnamese asylum seekers to Vietnam without allowing for adequate procedures to determine their claim to refugee status, thus allowing for a risk of possible torture or ill-treatment upon return to Vietnam. 23. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Australia for its reply, dated 3 August 2015, to the present communication. He takes note of the information provided by the Government that the 46 Vietnamese asylum seekers received on-water interviews; that the State found the asylum seekers did not engage the state's non-refoulement obligations; that the government of Australia obtained assurances from the Vietnamese government concerning the treatment the asylum seekers would receive on return to Vietnam; that Australian officials were present upon the asylum seekers' arrival in Vietnam; and that the Vietnamese government subsequently informed Australia that all asylum seekers were safe 9