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

Select target paragraph3