The case of Esteban Ruiz Suarez v. Spain. Views of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated August 29, 2024. Message No. 69/2019.
In 2019, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Spain.
The author claimed that the failure to provide him with accessibility measures, procedural adjustments and support during the criminal proceedings against him was a violation of his rights under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has found a violation of certain provisions of this convention.
The Committee's legal position: In accordance with the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, States parties ensure that people with disabilities have access to justice on an equal basis with others, including by providing for procedural and age adjustments to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants in all stages of the legal process, including the investigation and other stages of pre-production. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also recalls that, in accordance with article 1, paragraph 3, of the said Convention, in order to ensure effective access to justice for people with disabilities, States parties shall promote appropriate training for staff of the justice system, including police and penitentiary institutions (paragraph 7.6 of the Views).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recalls that the refusal to provide procedural adjustments for a particular person with a disability who needs them constitutes a form of disability-based discrimination in relation to the right to access justice. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recalls that procedural adjustments in the context of access to justice should not be confused with reasonable accommodation, since the latter is limited by the concept of disproportionate burden, while procedural adjustments are not. An example of procedural adjustments is the recognition of various communication methods for people with disabilities in courts and tribunals. To ensure effective access to justice, judicial processes must be open and transparent, for example by providing information in an understandable and accessible form, as well as recognizing various forms of communication and adapting to their use. In addition, in the interests of transparency, States parties should ensure that all relevant information is available and accessible, as well as that all complaints, cases and court orders are properly recorded and made available (paragraph 7.8 of the Views).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recalls principle 3 of the International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities, which states that adjustments include all appropriate and necessary types of modification and adaptation, taking into account the specifics of each specific case, including the use of intermediaries or facilitators, the implementation of procedural modifications and adjustments, adaptation to the environment and the provision of communication support to ensure access to justice for people with disabilities. If possible, adjustments should be provided before the start of the trial. Among other measures, it is recommended to develop a training program for independent intermediaries or facilitators to assist in communication between the parties to the trial and justice system officials in order to identify necessary adjustments and support. Adjustments should include, in particular, changes in the methodology of asking questions in appropriate circumstances, such as resolving leading questions, avoiding compound questions, finding alternatives to complex hypothetical questions, providing additional time for answering, taking breaks if necessary, and using simple language. In addition, States should ensure that police officers, prosecutors and others involved in detaining and investigating criminal offences are aware of the rights of people with disabilities, take into account the possibility of a person having a disability and adjust their actions accordingly. They should also ensure that there are independent third parties, such as defense lawyers, who can accompany people with disabilities to the police station to assist them in the investigation process, as well as intermediaries or facilitators to facilitate communication between people with disabilities and law enforcement and court officials. Legislation and policies should also be adopted to allow people with disabilities to request the provision of procedural adjustments (paragraph 7.9 of the Considerations).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recalls that principle 4 of the International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for People with Disabilities sets out guidelines on accessibility of information. Among other things, it suggests using a simple, easy-to-read and understand language and communication in a lightweight format as a means of communication. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recalls that there can be no effective access to justice if the buildings housing law enforcement and justice agencies are physically inaccessible to people with disabilities, as well as the services, information and communication provided by these agencies. Communication barriers may hinder access to information, understanding of court proceedings, or dialogue with judges, defense lawyers, and other stakeholders (paragraph 7.10 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: It took note of the author's argument that, despite being aware of the author's disability, the judicial authorities had never provided the necessary procedural adjustments and support in view of his condition (paragraph 7.3 of the Views).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities considered that the State party's authorities should have acted in due course and with due diligence as soon as they became aware of the author's disability, and in an effective and interdisciplinary dialogue with him, they should have identified his needs for procedural adjustments and support, reviewing them throughout the criminal process. The Committee also concluded that the State party should have ensured the accessibility of the information and communication provided to the author, taking into account his intellectual disability (paragraph 7.11 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The State party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, considered separately and in conjunction with article 9.