CRPD/C/22/D/18/2013 allocated significant funding for – the secure care facility, which was built in part to provide appropriate accommodation for the author specifically. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 12 October 2017, the author first addressed the question of remedies. The AntiDiscrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability in specified areas of life subject to certain exemptions and defences. It is not a fundamental law that has a capacity to override or invalidate other laws of the Northern Territory, such as part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. Section 53 of the Anti-Discrimination Act specifically authorizes a person to carry out a discriminatory act that is necessary to comply with, or is authorized by an Act or regulation of the Northern Territory or an order of a court or tribunal. In the present case, all of the conduct complained of by the author has been authorized by the Northern Territory Supreme Court under the provisions of part II.A of the Criminal Code. 5.2 The author has already complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission that his indefinite detention was contrary to the Convention. The Commission found that his rights under articles 14 (1), 19, 25, 26 (1) and 28 (1) of the Convention had been violated, and made a series of recommendations to the Government directed at providing remedies for the author and at addressing the systemic issues raised. The Attorney-General for Australia tabled the report in Parliament but then rejected it, claiming that the Commission had no jurisdiction to undertake such an inquiry. The report has also been referred to the Northern Territory Chief Minister and Attorney-General by the author’s advocate, but the Northern Territory government has failed to provide any response. 5.3 As to the possibility of appealing the Court finding that the author was not fit to stand trial and to complain under the Anti-Discrimination Act about the Court’s failure to provide reasonable adjustments to him to enable him to exercise legal capacity, the author does not contend that the Supreme Court has misapplied the law. It has been correctly applied and no appeal would have any prospect of success in these circumstances. The author’s contention is, rather, that part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal Code is an unjust law that discriminates against him on the basis of his disability, in violation of his right to equality before the law. It does so by absolving him of criminal responsibility on the basis of his imputed legal incapacity. The law does not provide for adaptations and adjustments that would enable his culpability for the offences to be determined taking into account his cognitive impairment. No part of this regime is in any way concerned with the implementation of the obligation contained in article 12 (3) to provide support to persons to enable them to exercise legal capacity in the trial process.12 The State party has not made available any accommodation to allow him to participate effectively in the legal process, in violation of article 13. And neither the Government of Australia nor the government of the Northern Territory has a constitutional or statutory bill of rights that might be invoked by the author to invalidate part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. 5.4 As to remedies for deprivation of liberty, the author accepts again that part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal Code has been correctly applied in his case and that, as a consequence, any appeal from an application of the law in his case would be a futility. His lay advocates and guardians have repeatedly, over many years, made representations and submissions at all levels of the Northern Territory Government calling for appropriate community based support outside a prison or other custodial care environment. 5.5 In Noble v. Australia, the Committee considered the State party’s argument that the terms of the Western Australian Criminal Law (Mental Impaired Accused) Act 1996, which also establishes a regime for the differential treatment of accused persons with cognitive impairments who are found unfit to stand trial, constituted legitimate differential treatment, but rejected that contention, finding that such a regime constituted a violation of articles 5 (1) and (2) of the Convention.13 The position of the author under part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal Code is equivalent to that of Mr. Noble. 12 13 Noble v. Australia (CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012), paras. 8.5 and 8.6. Ibid., para. 8.4. 9