CRPD/C/22/D/18/2013 those persons,26 including to prevent any form of treatment contrary to article 15 and to safeguard the rights established under the Convention. In this context, State party authorities must pay special attention to the particular needs and possible vulnerability of the person concerned, including because of his disability. The Committee further recalls that the failure to adopt relevant measures and to provide sufficient reasonable accommodation when required by persons with disabilities who have been deprived of their liberty may constitute a breach of article 15 (2) of the Convention. 8.10 In the present case, the author submits that he was detained in maximum security, was held in custody with convicted persons, was subjected to involuntary treatment and was also subjected to acts of violence from other prisoners. The State party admits that the author was not separated at all times from convicted offenders, that he was temporarily held in isolation and that he was sometimes subjected to involuntary treatment. Additionally, the Committee notes that the author was committed to custody, first in Alice Springs Correctional Centre and then in a secure care facility, for more than nine years, without having any prior indication as to the expected duration of his detention. His custody was deemed indefinite insofar as, in compliance with section 43ZC of part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal Code, a supervision order is for an indefinite term. Taking into account the irreparable psychological effects that indefinite detention may have on a detained person, the Committee considers that the indefinite custody to which the author was subjected amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. 27 The Committee therefore considers that – even though the author has not demonstrated that he was subjected to violence from other prisoners – the indefinite character of his custody, his detention in a correctional centre without being convicted of a criminal offence, his periodic isolation, his involuntary treatment and his detention together with convicted offenders amount to a violation of article 15 of the Convention. 8.11 The Committee take notes of the author’s submissions under article 19 that he was not provided with adequate housing in the community, as an alternative to custody in the Correctional Centre or the secure care facility. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the Supreme Court’s periodic reviews have consistently concluded that, due to the lack of an appropriate facility, there was no practical alternative to custody in the Correctional Centre. The Committee also notes the favourable decision implemented on 9 February 2017 to grant the author the possibility of living in a community residence in Alice Springs. In view thereof, the Committee considers that the issue raised by the author concerning the alleged violation of article 19 of the Convention has become moot. Accordingly, in view of the circumstances of the case, this particular issue does not need to be addressed further. 8.12 Finally, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that he lacked access to health care (art. 25 of the Convention), habilitation and rehabilitation services (art. 26), and that his right to an adequate standard of living and social protection (art. 28) had been violated. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that, while the author remained in custody, it had allocated significant expenditure to both health and disability support services, that the author received adequate health, habilitation and rehabilitation services and adequate accommodation, that the secure care facility had been built in part to provide appropriate accommodation to the author and that the author was eventually relocated to a community residence. The Committee notes that the statements of the author and of the State party are not consistent and that the information provided does not enable it to conclude that violations of articles 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention have occurred. 8.13 In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Convention. 26 27 See Guerrero Larez v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CAT/C/54/D/456/2011), para. 6.4, and Yrusta v. Argentina (CED/C/10/D/1/2013), para. 10.5. Alfred de Zayas, “Human rights and indefinite detention”, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 87, No. 857 (March 2005), pp. 19 and 20. 15