CRPD/C/22/D/17/2013

United Nations

Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities

Distr.: General
18 October 2019
Original: English

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 of the
Optional Protocol, concerning communication
No. 17/2013*, **
Communication submitted by:

Christopher Leo (represented by counsel, Phillip
French and Mark Patrick, Australian Centre for
Disability Law)

Alleged victim:

The author

State party:

Australia

Date of communication:

19 September 2013 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 70 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State party on 21 November 2013 (not issued
in document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

30 August 2019

Subject matters:

Institutionalization of person with intellectual
and psychosocial impairment; right to enjoy legal
capacity on an equal basis with others

Procedural issue:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Substantive issues:

Access to court; intellectual and psychosocial
disability; exercise of legal capacity; deprivation
of liberty; discrimination on the ground of
disability; restrictions of rights

Articles of the Convention:

5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 25, 26 and 28

Article of the Optional Protocol:

2

1.
The author of the communication is Christopher Leo, an Aboriginal national of
Australia, born on 24 August 1980. He claims to be a victim of violations by the State party
of articles 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention. The Optional Protocol

* Adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session (26 August–20 September 2019).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Ahmad Alsaif, Martin Mwesigwa Babu, Monthian Buntan, Imed Eddine Chaker, Amalia Eva Gamio
Ríos, Jun Ishikawa, Samuel Njuguna Kabue, Kim Mi Yeon, Lászlo Gábor Lovászy, Robert George
Martin, Dmitry Rebrov, Jonas Ruskus, Markus Schefer and Risnawati Utami. Pursuant to rule 60 (1)
(c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, Rosemary Kayess did not participate in the examination of
the present communication.

GE.19-18126(E)



Select target paragraph3