CRPD/C/22/D/17/2013 5.13 Finally, indefinite incarceration in a prison and a prison-like detention centre does not realize the author’s right to housing under article 28. Community-based accommodation and supports required by the author are fully capable of being provided in a community setting. In other areas of Australia, persons with intellectual disability who have been in contact with the criminal justice system, including those who have been charged with far more serious offences than those with which the author was charged, are effectively supported in far less restrictive and much more enabling environments.18 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 12 February 2018, the State party reiterated its submissions, referred to its response to the Committee’s views in Noble v. Australia19 and provided a factual update on the author’s situation. 6.2 In September 2015, the author was gradually relocated from the secure care facility to a community residence. Since 7 November 2016, he has been living alone in a house in Alice Springs. He is supported by two disability support workers who are both present at all times and have previous experience working with indigenous people with intellectual disabilities. They hold monthly meetings chaired by the group home manager to discuss the author’s health and behaviour, trends, desired outcomes and relevant updates. 6.3 On 20 December 2017, the author’s custodial supervision order was formally varied to a non-custodial supervision order. The application to vary the order was recommended and initiated by the Northern Territory Department of Health, taking into account, among other things, the progress made by the author. The author’s current supervision order permits him to return to the secure care facility should his behaviour deteriorate. Were he to remain at the secure care facility for more than two working days, an application to the Supreme Court must be made. 6.4 The author continues to have a significant amount of contact with his family, both in Alice Springs and in remote communities. He continues to engage in occupational and educational activities. He has recently been provided with a pet dog and is involved in its day-to-day care. He continues to be subject to a guardianship order whereby the Office of the Public Guardian and the community guardian are to be consulted for all health- and accommodation-related matters. B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility and the merits Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee and nor has it been or is it being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party submits three sets of arguments relating to the admissibility of the author’s claims, under article 2 (b), (d) and (e) of the Optional Protocol, which it will examine separately. 7.4 Firstly, the Committee notes the State party’s arguments relating to the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the author’s claims under articles 5, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. According to the State party, in respect of the allegations made under article 5, it was up to the author to complain to the Northern Territory AntiDiscrimination Commissioner, who has the power to investigate and issue legally binding 18 19 See, for example, Shannon McDermott, Jasmine Bruce, Karen R. Fisher and Ryan Gleeson, “Evaluation of the integrated services project for clients with challenging behaviour: final report”, (Sydney, Social Policy Research Centre, 2010). See www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Pages/Humanrightscommunications.aspx. 11