Part II The law: International human rights law and disability Section I Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities SUMMARIES OF CRPD COMMITTEE VIEWS ON COMMUNICATIONS LODGED UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL Reproduced with the kind permission of the International Disability Alliance C v Brazil (no. 10/2013) On 2 October 2014, the Committee adopted its views in this case against Brazil concerning a woman who had been demoted after taking more than three months of medical leave in accordance with her employer’s policy, following a series of injuries which led to chronic illness and the permanent impairment of her knee. While the Committee found the complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it nevertheless explored whether the complaint fell within the scope of the Convention and concluded that the difference between illness and disability is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind, and that a health impairment which is initially conceived of as illness can develop into an impairment in the context of disability because of its duration or its chronic development. The Committee highlighted that a human rights-based model of disability requires taking into account the diversity of persons with disabilities, as well as the interaction between individuals with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers. X v Argentina (no. 8/2012) On 11 April 2014, the Committee adopted its views in this case against Argentina concerning a prisoner with disabilities who was receiving medical treatment on a daily basis as an outpatient. He complained of the conditions of detention, including lack of accessibility, and of the transfer between the prison and the hospital which he alleged put his life and health at risk. Based on his right to access adequate medical care and rehabilitation, he made repeated requests to be held in home arrest – all of which were denied. The Committee rejected his claims on the merits under articles 10, 25 and 26 of the Convention, finding it inconclusive that his life and health were put at risk by the transfer from prison to the hospital and that there was insufficient evidence to refute that his medical needs were being met. The Committee upheld the petitioner’s complaints with respect to the lack of accessibility within the prison and the lack of accommodations made to guarantee his mobility, finding violations of articles 9(1), 9(2) and 14(2) of the Convention, as well as a violation of article 17 for the precarious conditions of detention to which he was subjected on account of the lack of accessibility and failure to provide reasonable accommodation within the prison. Liliane Gröninger v Germany (no. 2/2010) On 4 April 2014, the Committee adopted its views in this case against Germany concerning the right to work of a young disabled man in which the Committee found that the State failed to promote the right to work by failing to facilitate inclusion into the labour market. The German Social law provides for the granting of a subsidy for persons with disabilities to integrate in the labour force, which is only applicable to persons with disabilities whose full working capacity may be restored within 36 months. The legal conditions for the granting of the integration subsidy is that an employer should make a binding employment offer to the individual and apply for the integration subsidy, after which the Employment Agency should evaluate the situation and take a decision on the duration and amount of the integration subsidy to be allocated (the subsidy would amount to a maximum of 70% of the wages, for a maximum period of 60 months). The complaint alleged that the granting of the subsidy is discriminatory as it only applies to those whose full working capacity may be restored and it does not create rights for disabled persons, as the right to claim such a subsidy belongs exclusively to the employer. Chapter 4: International monitoring: The tasks and functioning of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities | 67