CRPD/C/22/D/18/2013 5.6 The author contests the argument that part II.A of the Code constitutes legitimate differential treatment that does not amount to discrimination. The practical effect of the author being found not guilty because of intellectual and psychosocial impairment has been that he has been subjected to a custodial supervision order and confined in detention facilities for a period far in excess of any term of imprisonment that might have been imposed had he been convicted of the offences with which he was charged. 5.7 Nor do the provisions of part II.A of the Code constitute legitimate differential treatment on the basis that they operate to protect the community from a “continuing danger” presented by the author. Only persons with cognitive impairment may be subjected to these provisions, rather than all persons within the general population who may engage in conduct that presents a continuing danger to the community. Part II.A is manifestly discriminatory for this reason alone. 5.8 As the State party admits, justices of the Northern Territory Supreme Court repeatedly expressed concern about the author’s incarceration in a criminal justice facility. The Court was clearly of the view that this was not necessary to protect the community, provided a less restrictive community-based alternative to custody was available. The Northern Territory government failed to make any such alternative available for years. The State party also does not identify the form of self-harm to which it claims the author is at risk. While incarcerated in prison, the author was subjected to actual violence from other prisoners and to the continuing risk of such violence. 5.9 The author’s detention is arbitrary because it is based on his disability. It is therefore discriminatory and in violation of article 14. Regular Court review of the author’s circumstances did not and does not render his detention any less discriminatory or arbitrary. The Court’s decision to continue his detention in a correctional facility was based upon the absence of alternatives to prison, not upon his assessed level of dangerousness. The State party has not established that at the material time it was pursuing any plan, to the maximum extent of its available resources, to address the multiple and aggravated social disadvantage of the author as a disabled and Aboriginal person. 5.10 Detention at Alice Springs Correctional Centre subjected the author to degrading treatment and punishment in violation of article 15 of the Convention. 14 He was committed to imprisonment in that facility without ever having been convicted of any offence that would provide an objective justification for his detention, the justifying factor being his intellectual and psychosocial impairment, and he was accommodated with persons who had been convicted of criminal offences. 5.11 The author rejects the State party’s contentions that he was not held in isolation and that he was provided with the habilitation, rehabilitation and mental health and other support services he required. His mental and functional capacities deteriorated as a result. He was in high-security detention at all times, he was in isolation frequently and for long periods of time and he was exposed to violence and oppression from the general prison population. He was deprived of meaningful habilitation, rehabilitation, and leisure activities and personal comforts. The reviews conducted by the Northern Territory Supreme Court make it clear that his mental and functional integrity and capacity declined as a result of his imprisonment. 5.12 The author’s mental health and disability-related needs were not adequately addressed, in violation of articles 25 and 26. Positive behaviour support plans may have been developed, but these could not be effectively implemented due to the environmental conditions and lack of staff within the prison. The author did not ever receive 24-hour disability support seven days a week at Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The author’s access to mental health services improved somewhat at the secure care facility. 5.13 Finally, indefinite incarceration in a prison and a prison-like detention centre does not realize the author’s right to housing under article 28. Community-based accommodation and support required by the author are fully capable of being provided in a community setting. In other areas of Australia, persons with intellectual disability who have been in 14 10 Ibid., para. 8.9.