CCPR/C/132/D/2900/2016 Advance unedited version line with the Committee’s jurisprudence, 13 this may not constitute an effective domestic remedy for the purposes of international human rights law. In any event, the State party argues that the author should have exhausted at least one of these remedies and therefore his claims under articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible as per article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol. The State party further notes that the author appears to have conflated articles 2 (1) and 26 and seeks to use article 26, which is a stand-alone right, as an auxiliary argument in relation to his claims about violations of article 10(3) in conjunction with article 2 (1). The State party underlines that in similar cases, the Committee found it unnecessary to examine the same claims under both articles and concludes that the author has failed to substantiate his claims under article 26 of the Covenant. 4.7 Regarding the merits of the above claims, the State party submits that the NT Criminal Code pursues dual legitimate aims, of providing fairness to accused persons unable to understand the proceedings against them, and ensuring the protection of the wider community and for the accused persons themselves. Furthermore, the State party notes that the law under which the author is detained is based on reasonable and objective criteria. In this context, it emphasizes that the author’s custodial supervision order was imposed following a finding of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. In addition, the Supreme Court retains considerable discretion in deciding whether or not to impose such an order and the legal standard governing that decision is that persons must be released unconditionally unless “the safety of the supervised person or the public will or is likely to be seriously at risk if the supervised person is released”. The State party submits that the bases on which the author’s supervised custody continues, notably, the risks associated with a premature release and his need for care and supervision, are clear, objective and reasonable, and are not defined by reference to disability. Lastly, the State party deems that supervision orders are proportionate means of balancing community and individual safety because they are applied only in limited circumstances as measures of last resort. Furthermore, periodic reports must be submitted to the court to allow it to examine every 12 months the continued necessity of detention. An additional safeguard of the regime is that the accused has the right to appeal against a finding subjecting him/her to custodial supervision. 4.8 The State party does not contest the admissibility of the author’s allegations under article 9 of the Covenant but submits that they are without merit. It argues that the prohibition against arbitrary detention does not mean that persons with a disability, including persons with cognitive impairment, cannot be detained at all or cannot be made subject to indefinite custody orders, where it is based on sound, objective justifications and supported by appropriate legal safeguards.14 The necessity of detention is assessed on objective factors and the NT Supreme Court has regularly reviewed the necessity of the author’s continuing detention. Further, the management plan approved by the Supreme Court has clearly evidenced the intentions of all involved with the ultimate goal of achieving the author’s move to a less restrictive setting. It further notes the author was and is held in conditions that differ from general correctional centre conditions. The author is now residing full-time outside of a correctional facility and has progressed particularly well since being transferred to Darwin. 4.9 The State party submits that the author has not provided any evidence as to his claim that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by prison staff and it therefore invites the Committee to declare this part of the complaint inadmissible. In any event, when it comes to the merits of his claims under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant, the State party notes that the conditions of the author’s detention have not caused him to suffer severe pain and suffering such to constitute torture. The State party contests the binding nature of the Nelson Mandela Rules and further contests that the author’s detention in a correctional centre, taken alone, constitutes a violation of his rights. It notes in this respect that the Complex Behaviour Unit at the Darwin Correctional Centre is purpose built and operates with a strong therapeutic focus. In addition, the operation of the secure care facility in Alice Springs has provided an invaluable alternative to the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The State party acknowledges that prolonged solitary confinement may constitute a violation of the Covenant, however, contrary to his statements, the author was not held in solitary confinement between 13 14 6 The State party refers to C. v. Australia (CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999). The State party refers to A. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/66/D/754/1997).