Part II The law: International human rights law and disability Section I Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The Committee upheld the obligation incumbent on the State to ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities, and this obligation must be maintained regardless of contractual relationships concluded between individuals and private entities. HM v Sweden (no 3/2011) This case against Sweden concerns a local municipality’s refusal to grant a building permit to a woman with a degenerative illness, who could not leave her home without great risk, for installation of a hydrotherapy pool on her property for the purposes of rehabilitation and maintaining her health. The Committee found that the State failed to provide reasonable accommodation and fulfil its obligations concerning non-discrimination, living independently and being included in the community, health and rehabilitation, resulting in violations of articles 5(1), 5(3), 19(b), 25 and 26, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3(b), (d) and (e) and 4(1)(d) of the Convention. Guidance published by UN Enable152 suggests that the chief advantages of the individual complaints procedure are that it: • Provides an opportunity for specific redress in individual cases when a State violates the rights of persons with disabilities and no remedy can be obtained from national procedures • Provides the possibility of international recourse for persons with disabilities who have been denied access to justice at the national level • Allows the Committee to highlight the need for more effective remedies at the national level • Allows the Committee to develop a new body of jurisprudence on how better to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities; • Assists States in determining the content of their obligations under the Convention and thus assists them in implementing those obligations. 4.9. CONDUCTING INQUIRIES INTO ALLEGATIONS OF GRAVE AND SYSTEMIC VIOLATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL If the CRPD Committee receives reliable information indicating grave or systemic violations of the provisions of the Convention by a State party, the Committee may invite the State to cooperate in the examination of the information by submitting observations. After considering these, and any other reliable information, the Committee may designate one or more of its members to conduct an inquiry and to issue a report urgently. The inquiry may include a visit to the country in question. Having conducted its inquiry, the Committee must transmit its findings and its comments to the State, which has six months to submit its observations to the Committee. The inquiry procedure is wholly confidential and must be conducted with the full cooperation of the State concerned. Following the six-month period in which it may submit observations, the State may be invited to submit details of measures it has taken to respond to the inquiry. The Committee may at this stage request further information from the State. 152 OHCHR and Inter-Parliamentary Union, From Exclusion to Equality: Realizing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Handbook for Parliamentarians on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, 2007; available at www.un.org/disabilities/documents/toolaction/ipuhb.pdf. Chapter 4: International monitoring: The tasks and functioning of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities | 69