CRPD/C/23/D/73/2019
2.6
The author lodged a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission
in December 2013, which “closed” the complaint and referred it to the Office of the Public
Protector, to which the author had also complained directly. His appeal was denied and
receipt of an updated complaint was not acknowledged. On several occasions, the Office
tried to “close down” his complaint. Receipt of the author’s updates has not been confirmed
and his enquiries have not received any substantive response, despite a proposed reopening
of his case and a proposed meeting of the Office with the Commission.
2.7
The author additionally sent complaints to three departments of the Western Cape
provincial government, which were “either ignored or not prosecuted with the dedication
and vigour necessary”. Complaints concerning the Western Cape provincial government’s
handling of his case did not receive a substantive response either.
2.8
The author’s complaint to the office of the Presidency was assigned a reference
number, but was not followed up on by the Office. His complaints to the Auditor General,
the ministry responsible for cooperative government, the Ministry of Women, Children and
People with Disabilities, the Public Service Commission and the department of justice were
either “completely ignored” or were met with “a further lack of attention and response”.
2.9
The author adds that although he was advised by City of Cape Town officials of the
possibility of seeking remedies in the South African courts, it is evident that this is not a
viable option for a person in a poor financial situation and in poor health. Moreover, if he
were to bring a claim to the courts, the City of Cape Town would expend taxpayers’ money
in defending its actions.
2.10 The author claims that the authorities’ decisions on his tax rebate claims have been
unlawful under the State party’s constitution and the City of Cape Town’s Rebates Policy,
as well as unreasonable and discriminatory given that others in the same position have
received rebates. He adds, in this respect, that the City’s rates rebate department confirmed
to him that the payment of a disability insurance as a lump sum rather than the instalments
that he received would not have been counted as income. He states that it is likely that his
case is not isolated and that other persons with disabilities and senior citizens could be
victims of similar violations of the Convention by the State party.
2.11 The author disputes that the City of Cape Town officials who dealt with his
applications had the required expertise. He requests that an evaluation of whether their
qualifications are relevant and adequate be undertaken, as the information requested under
the Promotion of Access to Information Act was given only in part, and not in a timely
manner. Moreover, the Revenue Department’s files show that the decision-making process
was not recorded or documented, and also reveal a lack of other relevant documentation.
The author submits that the treatment of his case falls below professional standards, and
requests that the matters be investigated as professional misconduct.
2.12 The author further disputes undated internal correspondence of the City of Cape
Town concerning his case, which states that all discretions as allowed by the Rates Policy
were applied. The correspondence states that tax rebates are intended for those who have
limited resources, which the author takes as an indication that the City targeted him despite
the fact that he is not well off, that he has no ability to pay over the long term and that his
so-called ability to pay only comes from the depletion of his finite and limited capital
resources from the disability insurance payments.
Complaint
3.1
According to the author, the City of Cape Town’s denial of social assistance in the
form of rebates on property taxes constitutes a violation of his right to social protection
under article 28 (2) of the Convention. Moreover, the author claims that he was made to
pay undue amounts of taxes, amounting to a violation of his right to an adequate standard of
living under article 28 (1), as well as arbitrary deprivation of the right to property, under
article 12 (5) of the Convention. He further claims violations of his right to equality, under
articles 3 (e) and 5 (1), and of his right to freedom from degrading treatment, under article
15 (2) of the Convention. He also claims that the State party has violated his rights under
article 17 of the Convention in that the stress and mental and physical effects have had a
3