CRPD/C/23/D/41/2017
education and ensure that a framework for cooperation with his family was in place for the
sake of his personal well-being and well-being in school. The authors stress that the social
worker did not consider it at all necessary for Rubén to be placed in a special education
centre.
2.5
On 17 December 2010, a report on Rubén’s schooling was drawn up without his
parents’ authorization having been sought. The report mentions Rubén’s “disruptive
behaviour”, “psychotic outbreaks” and a general developmental delay “associated with
Down syndrome”. This terminology is more appropriate to clinical psychology than to a
psychoeducational report and, given their area of expertise, the report’s authors were not
qualified to make such observations, which focus on Rubén’s psychological disability. The
authors of the report did not meet with or interview the parents. The authors indicate that
the report has significant shortcomings, as it does not provide a full picture of the
circumstances described above as regards the abuse and lack of educational support that
Rubén experienced.
2.6
On 21 March 2011, after Ruben’s parents had expressed their disagreement with the
first report, a second schooling report was drawn up, with which Ruben’s parents also
expressed their disagreement. The report recommended that Rubén should be placed in a
special education centre. The report’s conclusion is invalid, because it does not take into
account the discrimination and abuse suffered by Rubén. This is clear from the following
quotation from the report: “The teaching staff treat the child well. Currently, relations are
being completely undermined by the child’s behavioural problems and the teaching staff’s
difficulty in handling them.”
2.7
On 6 May 2011, Rubén’s parents reported the abuse and discrimination suffered by
Rubén during the 2009/10 and 2010/11 school years to the León juvenile prosecution
service. Their report was shelved on 4 October 2011, “since […] the actions of the teaching
staff are not considered to constitute the criminal offence of assault, coercion or abuse of
[Rubén] and [it is] not the responsibility of [the] prosecution service, but rather that of other
judicial bodies, to resolve other aspects covered in the report of 6 May 2011”.3
2.8
On 20 June 2011, the Provincial Directorate of Education authorized Rubén’s
enrolment in the special education centre Nuestra Señora del Sagrado Corazón en León.
2.9
On 19 September 2011, Rubén’s parents filed an appeal with Administrative Court
No. 1 of León, through a special procedure for the protection of fundamental rights,
challenging the decision of the Provincial Directorate of Education. They requested the
Court to declare the decision null and void and to recognize Rubén’s right to be educated in
a mainstream public school. They argued that the decision violated the following
constitutional rights: the right to equality (art. 14) in relation to the right to education (art.
27), and the right to moral integrity of the child (art. 15) in relation to the principle of
human dignity (art. 10 (1)).
2.10 On 20 July 2012, Administrative Court No. 1 of León dismissed the appeal filed by
Rubén’s parents. The Court considered that the decision of the Provincial Directorate of
Education did not violate any constitutional rights. The Court referred to the jurisprudence
of the Constitutional Court, which states: “In conformity with the settled jurisprudence of
this Court, the principle of equality ‘before or in the law’ places upon the legislator the duty
to give equal treatment to those in equal legal situations.”4 The Court considered that in the
present case there had been no violation of the rights to equality and education since Rubén
is not in the same legal situation as other children without disabilities, hence there is no
legislative duty of equal treatment.
2.11 In its ruling, the Court states that “only with individual attention and the support of
specialist teachers who have been working with [Rubén] for a long time can an acceptable
response be provided to the learning needs”. The ruling also states that it cannot be
“claimed that the administration failed to provide the student with the necessary support
and assistance […]. Such support has been provided throughout the child’s education and
he has in fact been educated until this point in a mainstream school with the support of a
3
4
GE.20-12764
The authors provided a copy of the report filed with the prosecution service of León Provincial High
Court, dated 4 October 2011.
Administrative Court No. 1 of León refers to Constitutional Court Judgment No. 33/2006 of 13
February 2006 in paragraph 3 of its ruling.
3