CRPD/C/22/D/17/2013 the order.8 As the Court would have imposed a sentence of 12 months of imprisonment if the author had been held guilty for the offence, it fixed the term of supervision at 12 months. The author returned to a high-security unit at Alice Springs Correctional Centre, where he remained until June 2013. He therefore spent a total of 5 years and 10 months in custody in prison, which is almost six times the period of custody he would have been required to serve had he been convicted of the offences with which he was charged. 2.5 For almost the whole period, the author was held in maximum security, being confined to his cell in isolation for long periods. He was provided intermittently with very limited or no access to the mental health services necessary for the stabilization of his mental health condition and his recovery, or to the habilitation and rehabilitation programmes necessary for him to develop communications, social and living skills and behaviours. As a consequence, the author’s mental health condition and social functioning deteriorated, and he became more dependent and institutionalized. 2.6 When the Northern Territory Supreme Court committed the author to custody in prison, it set a date for a major review of the order to determine whether he ought to be released. On 19 November 2009, the Court ordered that the author should remain in custody despite having already served 26 months, namely more than twice the period to which he would have been sentenced had he been convicted. The Court also purportedly conducted periodic reviews of the author’s circumstances. A review commenced in March 2012 but remains incomplete. Essentially, the only outcome of that review was the ordering of further reports. 2.7 In June 2013, the author was transferred to Kwiyernpe House, a custodial facility built in 2013 by the Northern Territory government and operated by the Aged and Disability Program of the Northern Territory Department of Health. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that the State party has violated his rights under articles 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention. His communication concerns conduct carried out after 19 September 2009, prior conduct being included by way of background information only. 3.2 The author’s right to equality and non-discrimination under article 5, his right to liberty and security under article 14 and his right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under article 15 of the Convention were violated because up until June 2013 he was committed to indefinite custody in prison without having been convicted of an offence. A person without a disability could not be committed to indefinite custody in prison without having been convicted of an offence. In that sense, part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal Code is a discriminatory law in that it applies only to persons with disabilities. 3.3 The author’s right to non-discrimination under article 5 has also been violated because after June 2013 he was detained in a secure facility established according to the provisions of part 3 of the Disability Services Act of the Northern Territory of Australia, which deals with the “involuntary treatment and care of persons with a disability”. Part 3 of the Act is also a discriminatory law in that it applies only to persons with disabilities. The major and periodic reviews of the author’s custodial supervision order have failed to protect his right to equality before the law under article 12 of the Convention. They have simply resulted in the perpetuation of his inequality. Consequently, the law authorizes and does not protect the author from such discrimination. 3.4 The author’s rights under articles 5, 14 and 15, as well as his right to equal recognition before the law under article 12, his right to access to justice under article 13 and his right to live independently and be included in the community under article 19 of the Convention have been violated because he was held in custody in prison for a period six times longer than the period for which a person without a disability would have been committed to custody in equivalent circumstances. 8 In general, that term is equivalent to the period of imprisonment and/or supervision that would have corresponded to the sentence imposed if the person had been found guilty (sect. 43ZG (2)). 3

Select target paragraph3