CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 were offshore entry persons and unlawful non-citizens liable to detention under the Migration Act. The authors consider that this amounts to a violation of their rights under article 9 (2) of the Covenant. Article 9 (4) 3.11 Under Australian law, the detention cannot be challenged and no court has jurisdiction to assess its necessity, including by reference to risk factors pertaining to individual authors. Under the Migration Act, detention of offshore entry persons is mandatory, and the Act does not provide for individualized assessments of the necessity of detaining particular individuals on legitimate grounds. There is thus no statutory basis for challenging the substantive necessity of detention. The authors consider that the only review processes available to them (the refugee status assessment and the independent merits review) are limited to a consideration of their asylum claims. 3.12 The Australian courts can only conduct a purely formal review of whether the authors are offshore entry persons, whether they have been granted a visa or not, or whether they are being held pending removal to another country. While the courts can review administrative decisions for the limited legal grounds of jurisdictional error, including denial of procedural fairness, such review does not concern the substantive necessity of detention. 3.13 Since the reasons for the adverse security assessments were not disclosed, it is impossible for the authors to identify any errors of law made by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Furthermore, the courts have accepted that they lack the expertise to evaluate security information and their review of the evidence in such cases remains largely formal and ineffective. The authors consider that even if they could commence judicial review proceedings, the Organisation could claim “public interest immunity” to preclude them from challenging any adverse security evidence in court, as it has done in other Federal Court cases involving adverse security assessments concerning non-citizens. Articles 7 and 10 (1) 3.14 The authors argue that the arbitrary character of their detention, its indefinite duration and the difficult conditions in the facilities where they are being held are cumulatively inflicting serious, irreversible psychological harm upon them, contrary to articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. The difficult conditions of detention include inadequate physical and mental health services; exposure to unrest and violence and punitive legal treatment; the risk of excessive use of force by the authorities; and the witnessing or fear of incidents of suicide or self-harm by others. No domestic remedies, including constitutional remedies, are available in this regard. 3.15 Some institutions, including the Australian Human Rights Commission and medical bodies, have expressed serious concerns in connection with the mental health of persons detained in immigration facilities. In 2010, one of the largest studies on the topic, involving over 700 detainees, found a “clear association” between time in detention and rates of mental illness, with especially poor mental health in those detained for more than two years.4 Another 2010 study found psychological difficulties with relationships, profound 4 See Janet P. Green and Kathy Eagar, “The health of people in Australian immigration detention centres”, Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 192, No. 2 (2010). See also D. Silove, P. Austin and Z. Steel, “No refuge from terror: the impact of detention on the mental health of trauma-affected refugees seeking asylum in Australia”, Transcultural Psychiatry, vol. 44, No. 3 (September 2007). 5