CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 case has been discontinued by consent of the parties and that accordingly Al-Kateb remains the law. The Committee considers that the State party has not demonstrated the availability of an effective remedy for the authors’ claims regarding their detention. The possibility that the State party’s highest court may someday overrule its precedent upholding indefinite detention does not suffice to indicate the present availability of an effective remedy. The State party has not shown that its courts have the authority to make individualized rulings on the justification for each author’s detention. Moreover, the Committee notes that in the High Court’s decision of 5 October 2012 in the Plaintiff M47 case, the Court upheld the continuing mandatory detention of the refugee, demonstrating that a successful legal challenge need not lead to release from arbitrary detention. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party has not demonstrated the existence of effective remedies to be exhausted and that the communication is admissible with reference to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 9.4 Regarding the authors, the Committee notes the State party’s information dated 13 July 2015, 3 November 2015 and 10 February 2016 that they have recently been released from detention (paras. 8.1 and 8.3 above). Hence, the Committee’s above conclusion applies only in connection with the period of time prior to their release. 9.5 The Committee also notes that the authors have withdrawn their claims under article 9 (2), and therefore will not examine those claims. 9.6 Regarding the claims under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee considers that they have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares them admissible. 9.7 The Committee accordingly decides that the communication is admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under articles 7, 9 (1) and (4) and 10 (1). Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. Claims under article 9 (1) 10.2 The authors claim that their mandatory detention upon arrival and its continuous and indefinite character for undisclosed security reasons was unlawful and arbitrary, thus constituting a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. They claim that their detention was disproportionate to the security risk that they were said to pose and that domestic procedures for its review were manifestly inadequate. The State party argues that the authors were unlawful non-citizens who were being detained in application of the Migration Act and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, that their detention was therefore lawful and constitutionally valid, as previously declared by the High Court, and that it was also a proportionate response to the security risk they had been found to pose. 10.3 The Committee recalls that a detention may be authorized by domestic law and nonetheless be arbitrary.7 The notion of “arbitrariness” is not to be equated with “against the law”, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law. Detention in the course of proceedings for the control of immigration is not arbitrary per se, but the detention must be 7 16 See Human Rights Committee general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 12.