CRPD/C/22/D/18/2013 practices or policies of the Northern Territory government were discriminatory in relation to the author, it was up to him to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. The Commissioner would have had the power to issue binding orders requiring a party to carry out, or refrain from carrying out, certain acts, providing the author with an effective remedy. 4.8 Neither the author nor his guardian has ever challenged the Court’s finding that the author was not fit to stand trial, while it was subject to the ordinary processes of appeal. To the extent that the author required special accommodation under the relevant acts to allow him to exercise his legal capacity, it was up to him to make a complaint of discrimination pursuant to section 24 of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Also, both findings that the author was subject to supervision and liable to a custodial supervision order could have been challenged, as with any other criminal sentence. During proceedings, the author’s representative never disputed that the author required a high level of care and supervision and that this necessitated his accommodation in a secure care facility and, prior to this facility being available, the Correctional Centre. 4.9 Except for some allegations regarding breaches of articles 14 (unrelated to racial discrimination), 15 and 19, all the author’s allegations are insufficiently substantiated. In particular, he has not specified which, if any, adjustments could have been made – or what supports could have been offered which were not offered – to enable the exercise of his legal capacity. He did not provide any evidence that he has been deprived of adequate mental health services nor that his health has deteriorated due to a deprivation or inadequacy of care. He has also not substantiated his claims under article 26 in relation to the provision and adequacy of habilitation and rehabilitation services to him or his claims under article 28 that he has not been provided with the disability-related services required to live in the community. 4.10 Finally, the Convention is concerned with discrimination on the basis of disability, not race or other characteristics. The author’s related claim under article 5 is therefore inadmissible ratione materiae. 4.11 On the merits, the State party insists that the Northern Territory Criminal Code does not treat persons any differently because of their disabilities, but provides for the differential treatment of people found “unfit to stand trial”. The Code is likely to disproportionately affect those who may meet those criteria for reasons associated with a disability, but such differential treatment is legitimate and well-established in international law in relation to both direct and indirect forms of discrimination. Article 5 of the Convention should be interpreted in accordance with that approach. The Code meets the test for legitimate differential treatment, 8 both in relation to findings of fitness to plead and in relation to the issuing of custodial orders, and therefore does not constitute a violation of article 12 (2). The bases on which custodial supervision orders are imposed and continued are clear, objective and reasonable, and are not defined by reference to disability. 4.12 The author has not provided any information on what measures he required in order to exercise legal capacity. The Northern Territory justice system provides people with disabilities the same opportunities as to persons without disabilities to access services of equal quality, as well as buildings and facilities, to receive information in an accessible manner, to have the opportunity to make complaints and to participate in relevant public consultations. The rights enshrined under article 13 have been accorded to the author. He has been legally represented by experienced criminal counsel throughout the proceedings and has also had a guardian appointed on his behalf. The State party is not aware of any requests to support the author’s participation in the proceedings which were denied. 8 6 The treatment is aimed at achieving a legitimate purpose that is based on reasonable and objective criteria and that is proportionate to the aim. See, for example, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination general recommendation No. 14 (1993) on article 1 (1) of the Convention, para. 2; Human Rights Committee general comment No. 18 (1989) on non-discrimination, para. 13; and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights general comment No. 20 (2009) on nondiscrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, para. 13.