A/HRC/4/21/Add.1 page 13 34. As regards prosecutions undertaken, Messrs Benbrika, Atik, Haddara, Joud, Kent, Merhi, A Raad, E Raad, Sayadi and Taha were arrested and charged in November 2005. In late March 2006, Messrs B Raad, M Raad and Hammoud were also arrested and charged. All the alleged of offenders have been through committal proceedings, at which a Magistrate found that there was a case against each on which a reasonable jury could convict. On 1 September 2006, 11 of the alleged offenders were committed to stand trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria on the charges under the Criminal Code. On 20 September 2006, the remaining two alleged offenders were committed to the Supreme Court to stand trial. All matters have been listed for a directions hearing in the Supreme Court on 1 December 2006. 35. With the exception of Messrs Hammoud, Kent and M Raad, each remand prisoner has been formally disciplined for breaches of prison rules following a guilty plea or a finding of guilt at the Prison Governor’s Disciplinary Hearings. Recorded breaches have included failure to comply with directions, verbal abuse directed at prison staff and verbal threats towards prison staff. Penalties have included monetary fines and restrictions on contact visits for periods of time not exceeding 28 days. 36. Regarding the legislation which regulates the communications between the detainees and their lawyers in prison, they mention the Act and the Corrections Regulations 1998 (Vic), which regulates communications between remand prisoners and their lawyers. They mention particularly sections 44, 47 (1) (m), 47 A and 47 B. 37. Given the above information, the Government affirms that the detention of the alleged offenders has not been arbitrary, has been necessary, proportionate and justifiable in the circumstances. The alleged offenders are also being treated, while on remand, with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Observations 38. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s comprehensive response. She would be appreciative to receive, as indicated in the response from the Government of Australia, information on any results of the investigation by the Corrections Inspectorate concerning the allegations that the remand prisoners were served pork meals. The Special Rapporteur would like to take the opportunity to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Persons deprived of their liberty” (see above para. 1, category III. 2.). As she noted in her 2005 report to the General Assembly, “[a] person in custody finds him or herself in a situation of enhanced vulnerability and can therefore be an easy target for persecution. Prison authorities are given total control over the most basic activities of the inmates, from the time they will sleep to what they will eat, and how they will be able to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief.” (A/60/399, para. 85).