CCPR/C/132/D/2365/2014 Advance unedited version The Complaint 3.1 At the time of the initial submission, the authors claimed that by transferring them to Nauru the State party would be in violation of its non-refoulement obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. The authors argue that conditions of the authors’ detention in Nauru would have been inadequate and contrary to requirements of articles 7, 10, 9 (1) and (4), 17, 23, and 24 of the Covenant. They claim that in Nauru they would have been arbitrarily detained and deprived of necessary educational, medical and social facilities. The authors submit that State party bears responsibility for these potential violations in case of their transfer. 3.2 The authors also claim that they were arbitrarily detained on Christmas Island for an excessive period of time contrary to requirements of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. They recall the Committee’s jurisprudence and argue that their detention was neither necessary nor proportionate. Furthermore, the claim that the State party was in violation of article 9 (4), as the authors did not have an avenue to challenge their detention 3.3 The authors argue that facilities and services available to them while in detention on Christmas Island were inadequate and contrary to requirements of articles 7, 10, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. They submit that national authorities did not provide them with all necessary facilities and support. Specifically, they argue that they did not have proper access to physical and mental health facilities. 3.4 The authors submit that conditions of community detention on the Australian mainland were in breach of articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. They argue that some of them were separated from other members of their families in Australia. They further specify, that B.A.A. was not allowed to reside with his brother, who had arrived to Australia 12 months earlier and was detained in community detention on the mainland. They further claim that community detention did not provide adequate facilities required by the authors. 3.5 The authors refer to article 2 (3) of the Covenant, without making any specific claim. As remedies, they request that he State party acknowledge the violations of the Covenant, apologize to them and provide them with adequate compensation and reparation. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 22 June 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the present communication. 4.2 The State party recalls the facts on which the present communication is based on the authors’ claims, and submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party submits that the authors’ claims are without merit. 4.3 The State party submits that the authors’ claims under articles 2 (3), 7, 9, 10, 17, 23 and 24 regarding their potential transfer from Christmas Island to Nauru are either inadmissible ratione materiae or not properly substantiated. The State party indicates that claims regarding conditions of living in Nauru are matters for the sovereign government of this State. Furthermore, there is no intention of transferring the authors to Nauru. The State party argues that, even if there was a decision to transfer the authors, the obligations of nonrefoulement under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant would not be triggered, as there is no real risk of irreparable harm. The authors did not provide sufficient details to substantiate possible personal risks they would face in Nauru. They made general and vague claims, without referring to individual circumstances with respect to each author. 4.4 The State party further argues that the authors’ claims under 2 (3), 7, 9, 10, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant concerning their detention on Christmas Island are insufficiently substantiated. 4.5 With respect to claims under article 7 of the Covenant, the State party notes that the authors did not provide any evidence to support their claim that conditions of detention on Christmas Island were inadequate. The State party also notes that between 2009 and 2014 individual welfare assistance to unaccompanied minors in immigration detention was provided by private contractors. They supplied appropriate food and clothing, organized programmes and activities. They also provided an individual officer for each unaccompanied 4