The case "Arturo Medina Led against Mexico." Views of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated September 6, 2019. Communication No. 32/2015.
In 2015, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Mexico.
The author stated that, since he was not tried on an equal basis with others because of the recognition of his non-jurisdiction and the application of a special procedure for non-judicial persons, he was a victim of discrimination due to disability. He claimed that he was excluded from the criminal proceedings and was not given the opportunity to be tried by a competent and impartial court, that he was deprived of the opportunity to attend court, present evidence in his defense, appoint lawyers of his choice and did not have access to the usual remedies provided for by criminal law, in particular, did not have opportunities to appeal the court's decision. The author also drew attention to the fact that the "security measures" applied against him were discriminatory. It was not only about criminal punishment, but also about psychiatric treatment, to which he was subjected against his will, since the judicial authorities considered that he posed a "danger" to society. Due to his disability, he was deprived of the possibility of early release, despite the fact that he met all the necessary legal requirements. He also noted that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation to provide the necessary reasonable accommodation requested by it, as well as its obligations to amend and repeal legislation that discriminated against persons with disabilities, in violation of article 5, considered separately and in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Certain provisions of the Convention have been violated.
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: with regard to the alleged violation of article 5 of the Convention, considered in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention, the Committee noted that, according to the author, the special procedure for non-judicial persons discriminates against persons with disabilities and the application of this procedure results in a restriction of the rights of persons with disabilities in the judicial process (paragraph 10.2 Considerations).
A special procedure for non-judicial persons, provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federal District, establishes rules in the framework of criminal proceedings against persons with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities. Thus, the question before the Committee was whether the differential treatment under the procedure applied was discriminatory or not (paragraph 10.3 of the Views).
The Committee noted that, according to the above-mentioned procedure, the judicial authority is obliged to issue an opinion on the conduct of an unsubstantiated person and his ability to express his position, appoint a lawyer for him and order the application of a special procedure against a person who has been declared indefinitely unsubstantiated. It was envisaged that in order to establish "the degree of non-jurisdiction or mental disorder, the judge may consider the relevant circumstances relevant to the case." In this case, on September 14, 2011, the author was charged with stealing a car. Among the measures taken by both the prosecutor's office and the criminal court, it was established the need to apply a special procedure for non-judicial persons on the basis of an assessment conducted by a forensic expert, according to which the author was found to have a dissocial personality disorder and possible "mild mental retardation", because of which he was declared "unable to testify". According to the documents submitted by the author, he had no opportunity to testify or protest the statements of the police officers who carried out his detention. He also could not invite a lawyer of his choice, as the judicial authority appointed him a defender. Moreover, he was not provided with any assistance or reasonable accommodation so that he could prepare a substantive defence. The documentation also indicated that the author had not been invited to participate in any of the hearings during the criminal proceedings. In view of the author's psychosocial or intellectual disability, a special procedure was applied to him, which prevented him from directly participating in the process and resorting to remedies, and, consequently, his right to due process was not guaranteed. While acknowledging that the principle of due process guarantees may have had exceptions in some cases, the Committee noted that in this case there is no justification for non-compliance. In addition, this procedure also did not guarantee the introduction of procedural adjustments in the interests of the author. Thus, the Committee considered that the application of a special procedure for non-judicial persons provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federal District led to discriminatory treatment of the author in violation of article 5, considered in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).
With regard to the allegations under article 9 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 4, the Committee took note of the author's complaint that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the availability of information during criminal proceedings. The Committee noted that due to the author's psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, he was not involved in the proceedings and did not have access to related information. All information about judicial procedures and actions was passed on to his public defender. In addition, the Committee stressed that the author's application to the District Court for a simplified version of the texts of court decisions was rejected on the grounds that he "was duly represented by his appointed lawyers". Only one of the decisions rendered by the collegial court in criminal cases was published in an accessible version. In this regard, the Committee concluded that the author's non-participation in the criminal proceedings in his case and the refusal to draft a simplified version of the court's decisions constituted a violation of article 9, read in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention (paragraph 10.5 of the Views).
The Committee considered that declaring the author "unable to testify" deprived him of the opportunity to exercise his legal capacity for the purposes of declaring his innocence, challenging the evidence against him, appointing lawyers of his own choice and appealing against any decisions rendered against him. The author did not have such an opportunity and did not receive adequate assistance or appropriate adjustments to exercise his rights. The Committee concluded that the described situation constituted a violation of article 12, considered in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention (paragraph 10.6 of the Views).
The Committee considers that, although States parties have some discretion in determining the procedural mechanisms that enable persons with disabilities to exercise their legal capacity, it is necessary to respect the relevant rights of individuals and procedural guarantees.
With regard to the violation of article 13, read in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention, the Committee noted that the author had been excluded from the criminal proceedings initiated against him. At the same time, it took note of the arguments presented by the State party that the decision to apply a special procedure for non-judicial persons to the author was based on medical reports and was intended to guarantee the author access to justice on an equal basis with others. In the Committee's opinion, this goal was not achieved, since the information provided did not indicate that the actions of the appointed lawyer allowed the author to participate effectively in the proceedings. The judicial authorities repeatedly denied the author the opportunity to exercise his rights, since: (a) from the very beginning of the criminal proceedings, he was unable to participate in the trial, he was forbidden to testify, challenge the evidence presented and attend the hearings; (b) copies of the decisions were not sent to him; (c) The court rejected the author's attempts to participate in the trial, for example, in the case when he appealed against the decision of the Ninth Criminal Court of 22 September 2011 and when he asked to cancel the appointment of a public defender in order to use the help of a private lawyer; (d) The application of a special procedure for non-judicial persons did not guarantee making procedural adjustments that would allow the author to gain access to justice on an equal basis with others. Even in an attempt to remedy the situation where the author was not informed of the final verdict against him, the court ordered that a second notification be sent to the legal representative, thereby depriving the author of the opportunity to play an active role in the process. The Committee therefore concluded that the State party had violated article 13, read in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention (paragraph 10.7 of the Views).
The Committee noted that from the very beginning of the criminal proceedings, a temporary security measure was imposed on the author, which was then continued after the conviction (a security measure and placement in a special institution for four years). Even though the sentencing judge considered the author's degree of danger to be "minimal", he ordered that he be placed in a psychosocial rehabilitation facility within the penitentiary system. In this regard, the Committee pointed out that the author's placement in the above-mentioned institution was dictated solely by medical reports and considerations of the possible danger he posed to society. According to the documents submitted, the main argument for placing the author in a special institution was the fact that, being disabled, he needed medical care. The Committee also stressed that the application for early release of the author, submitted by the author and his mother, was rejected by the judge because it was not established how the author would receive the necessary care. Thus, the Committee noted that the author's disability was the main reason for his deprivation of liberty. This led to a violation of article 14, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention (paragraph 10.8 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The State party has failed to comply with its obligations under articles 5, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 19, read in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention.