The case of Boris Makarov v. Lithuania. Views of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated August 18, 2017. Communication No. 30/2015.
In 2015, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaints were communicated to Lithuania.
The State party did not provide any form of "reasonable accommodation" for Ms. M., who was a person with disabilities, so that, as a victim in a criminal case, she could participate in court hearings and in the subsequent appeal procedure in connection with her case. The Committee considered that the State party had violated her rights under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, the author claimed that on 12 June 2005 his wife was the victim of a traffic accident caused by V.M. As a result, the author's wife received multiple injuries, including a head injury. On January 9, 2006, the State Medical Commission established a 60% medical disability rate for Ms. M. She subsequently suffered from headaches. According to the author, her disability, headaches, memory loss and disability were a direct consequence of the head injury she received in a traffic accident. The author further noted that by January 19, 2007, the effects of the head injury had worsened to such an extent that his wife was diagnosed with a disability rate of 80%. According to the author, Ms. Makarova's condition continued to deteriorate until her death on November 24, 2011, when she died due to the effects of traumatic brain injury. Due to the deterioration of her condition, Ms. M. could not participate in the court hearings. By letter dated June 30, 2006, Judge P. The Vilnius First District Court was informed that the author's wife would not be able to attend the proceedings, as well as that she did not have the opportunity to hire a lawyer for financial reasons. The author stressed that article 118 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania imposes on the prosecutor the obligation to defend the position of the victim if he or she cannot afford a lawyer, and imposes on the court the obligation to ensure that the victim enjoys this right. However, in the author's opinion, these demands were ignored and Judge P. officially refused to provide his wife with legal assistance. As a result, his wife was unlawfully denied access to justice and left without legal aid, which deprived her of the right to equal protection under the law. The author thus considered that the State party had violated his wife's rights under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention (paragraphs 2.1 - 2.5 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: access to justice did not occur in Ms. M.'s case, since, as a victim of the incident, she was clearly a "direct participant" in the relevant trials. It is also clear to the Committee that Ms. M. wanted her position to be heard during the court hearings, but no form of accommodation was presented to her so that she could have such an opportunity: she could not attend the hearings because of her disability; She informed the State party of this and asked the State party to ensure her legal representation in the first instance and in the appellate instance, but no assistance was provided to her. Considering that the State party had failed to provide any form of "reasonable accommodation" for Ms. M. to participate in the court hearings and subsequent appeal procedure in connection with her case, the Committee considered that the State party had violated her rights under articles 12, paragraph 3, and 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention (paragraph 7.6 of the Considerations).
In accordance with article 2 of the Convention, "reasonable accommodation" means making, when necessary in a particular case, necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments that do not become a disproportionate or unjustified burden, in order to ensure the realization or exercise by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Committee's conclusion: the State party has not fulfilled its obligations under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention (paragraph 7.7 of the Views).