CRPD/C/22/D/18/2013 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. 15 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. Australia16 and provided a factual update on the author’s situation. 6.2 In January 2016, the author was gradually relocated from the secure care facility to a community residence. Since 9 February 2017, he has been living in a house in Alice Springs, together with another person requiring similar care. He is assisted on a full-time basis by disability support staff who 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 22 May 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, of the progress made by the author. The author’s current supervision order permits him to return to the secure care facility if his behaviour deteriorates. 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 regular contact with his family and a good rapport with the disability support staff who work with him. 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 under article 5, it was up to the author to complain to the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, who has the power to investigate and issue legally binding orders. According to the author, the Anti-Discrimination Act is not a fundamental law that can invalidate other laws of the Northern Territories, such as the Northern Territory Criminal Code, and section 53 of that Act provides for an exception, allowing the performance of a discriminatory act if such an act is authorized by a court. The Committee also notes that the 15 16 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, January 2010). See www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Pages/Humanrights communications.aspx. 11