(a) The increased powers provided to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), including the possibility of detaining a person for renewable periods of seven days for questioning, which pose some difficulties especially due to the lack of a right to a lawyer of choice to be present during the questioning and of the right to seek a judicial review of the validity of the detention; (b) The lack of judicial review and the character of secrecy surrounding imposition of preventative detention and control orders, introduced by the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005; (c) Reports concerning the harsh conditions of detention of unconvicted remand prisoners charged with terrorism-related offences, also taking into account their status of accused (and not convicted) persons. The State party should: (a) Ensure that the increased powers of detention of ASIO are in compliance with the right to a fair trail and the right to take proceedings before a court to determine the lawfulness of the detention; (b) Guarantee that both preventative detention and control orders are imposed in a manner that is consistent with the State party’s human rights obligations, including the right to a fair trial including procedural guarantees; (c) Ensure that accused remand prisoners are separated from convicted persons and are subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons. (11) The Committee is concerned at the mandatory detention policy for those persons who enter irregularly the State party’s territory. In this respect, the Committee is especially concerned at the situation of stateless persons in immigration detention who cannot be removed to any country and risk being potentially detained “ad infinitum”. The State party should: (a) Consider abolishing its policy of mandatory immigration detention for those entering irregularly the State party’s territory. Detention should be used as a measure of last resort only and a reasonable time limit for detention should be set; furthermore, non custodial measures and alternatives to detention should be made available to persons in immigration detention; (b) Take urgent measures to avoid the indefinite character of detention of stateless persons. (12) The Committee welcomes information from the State party indicating the recent end of the policy of transferring asylum-seekers to offshore processing centres. Yet the Committee notes that “excised” offshore locations, notably Christmas Island, are still used for the detention of asylum-seekers who are subsequently denied the possibility of applying for a visa, except if the Minister exercises discretionary power. The State party should end the use of “excised” offshore locations for visa processing purposes in order allow all asylum-seekers an equal opportunity to apply for a visa. (13) The Committee notes that the provision of a medical practitioner of the arrested person’s choice is not a statutory right, but rather a duty of care requirement for Australian Federal Police members undertaking custodial duties. The State party should ensure the right to appoint a fully independent medical practitioner, preferably of the arrested person’s choice. (14) The Committee notes with appreciation the work of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) to protect and promote human rights in the State party, but regrets that: 48