segregation of juveniles from adults and that children be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and status. It is thus possible that children as young as 16 could be held in adult correctional facilities for terrorist offences; a possibility that Australia’s Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee has rejected. • Search and seizure. The ASIO Amendment Act enables ASIO and prescribed authorities to search persons suspected of possessing records or “things” that may be relevant to intelligence or to a terrorism offence (section 34D.5 (a)). The police may use reasonable and necessary force to conduct strip searches under section 34L. Concerns have been expressed that these powers may have been abused in practice (Asia Pacific Human Rights Network Submission to the Advisory Council of Jurists, February 2004).161 In summary, the ASIO Amendment Act raises concerns that it enables arbitrary detention, limits access to and communications with legal counsel, retracts the right to silence and the presumption of innocence, reverses the burden of proof, expands powers of search and seizure and makes few distinctions between children and adults. The Advisory Council of Jurists observes and recommends that: 1. Extended detention without charge for up to 168 hours appears to be contrary to the prohibition against arbitrary arrest or detention under Article 9.1 of the ICCPR. The ASIO Amendment Act should be brought into conformity with Australia’s legal obligations in this respect. 2. The restrictions placed on the right of detainees to access to a lawyer contravene Principle 8 of the Basic Principles on Lawyers. The ASIO Amendment Act, section 34 TA, should be amended to afford this right. 3. The detention of persons where no terrorist act has occurred may have a significant effect on the respective roles of journalists and legal advisors. Section 34.3 (c) of the ASIO Amendment Act should be reviewed to protect legal professional privilege and the qualified professional privilege of journalists. 83