A/HRC/WGAD/2017/71 identity investigation in 2016, which had also found that Mr. Imasi’s claimed identity could not be supported. The Government alleges that Mr. Imasi has not been cooperative in providing information to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection by consistently providing contradictory biographical details. Extensive international identity checks are currently being conducted and the investigation will be finalized as soon as possible. 29. The Government denies that Mr. Imasi, as an asylum seeker, had been denied the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy, arguing that the decisions to refuse Mr. Imasi protection were subject to both merits review and review by courts. On 11 June 2010 and 6 November 2013 respectively, Mr. Imasi lodged permanent protection visa applications, which were both denied, as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection found that Mr. Imasi’s case did not engage the protection obligations of Australia. Both of those decisions were subsequently reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal, which confirmed them. 30. The Government argues that on 26 July 2017, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection agreed to intervene under section 48B of the Migration Act to allow Mr. Imasi to lodge an application for a temporary protection visa or a safe haven enterprise visa. On 5 September 2017, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection advised Mr. Imasi of that decision and he lodged an application for a safe haven enterprise visa on 13 September 2017. 31. The Government objects to the source’s claim that Mr. Imasi’s detention is not reasonable, necessary and proportionate. According to the Government, limitations on rights in international law are permissible provided they are necessary in order to achieve a legitimate aim and are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to that end. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection argues that the detention of unlawful non-citizens meets that standard because it is necessary to ensure the integrity of the Australian migration programme. 32. The Government underlines Mr. Imasi’s failure to cooperate with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in its attempts to establish his identity. It notes that three review mechanisms are available for a regular review of the merits of detention: (a) detention review managers who ensure the lawfulness and reasonableness of detention by reviewing all detention decisions; (b) detention review committees, held monthly, to review the ongoing lawfulness and reasonableness of the decision to detain in relation to all detention cases; and (c) part of the ongoing review of individuals in immigration detention includes a risk-based approach to the consideration of the appropriate placement and management of an individual while their status is being resolved. Additional information from the source 33. On 27 September 2017, the reply from the Government was transmitted to the source for its additional comments, with a request to reply by 11 October 2017. The source responded on 6 October 2017. 34. In its response, the source contests the submission by the Government that Mr. Imasi has been uncooperative in the attempts of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to establish his identity. The source submits that Mr. Imasi’s case is an extreme example of statelessness, as he has no known birth date, birth place or family origins. The source submits that Mr. Imasi has attempted to assist the authorities, including by providing his fingerprints for the authorities to send to various organizations both domestically and internationally, but that he is unable to provide the Department of Immigration and Border Protection with the information requested as he simply has no knowledge of it. The source argues that the authorities have had eight years to conduct the investigations, which have not provided any conclusive information. In the view of the source, that should indicate to the authorities that the information sought really does not exist. 35. The source confirms that Mr. Imasi was given an opportunity to reapply for a protection visa in September 2017. However, the source expresses doubts about the potential outcome of that application, as the application form required the details of Mr. Imasi’s 5