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

Select target paragraph3