CRPD/C/23/D/73/2019
foreseeable negative impact on his mental and physical integrity and have significantly
increased his early mortality risk.
3.2
Furthermore, the author claims that the failure of redress mechanisms within the
City of Cape Town and other organs of the State party to properly act on his complaint with
fairness and independence amounts to a breach of his right to access to justice under articles
8 (1) (b) and 13 (1) of the Convention. He adds, in this respect, that the City of Cape
Town’s Revenue Department, in its decision of 22 March 2011, failed to advise him of his
right to appeal and that, during the appeal, he was not advised of his rights and was not
allowed to make any submissions or provide further information.
3.3
Finally, the author claims a violation of his right to respect for private life as, first,
the City of Cape Town unnecessarily sent back his documents, thus putting sensitive
information at risk of loss, and sent it to the wrong address; second, despite confirmation by
postal services, the City claimed not to have received documents sent and thus did not
properly protect confidential financial and health information; and third, the author was
required to submit information about his expenses even though it was unnecessary.
3.4
The author requests that his situation be remedied, including with respect to the
protection of his rights, the assurance of non-repetition of violations, a reversal of the rebate
decisions and compensation for losses and damages.
Additional submissions from the author
4.1
On 2 October 2017, the author provided further submissions, reiterating that he has
exhausted all available domestic remedies. He states that he has done so over the course of
almost four years and that it would be unreasonable to expect him to wait longer, given that
the remedies engaged had proven ineffective. In a submission dated 4 October 2017, the
author adds that he lacks the health required to undergo the stress of a court application, as
well as the necessary financial resources, and that he has therefore addressed other
authorities for remedies. He explains that his monthly income is only 6,000 rand, and that
lawyers in South Africa charge between 2,000 and 3,000 rand per hour.
4.2
On 26 September and 7, 10 and 24 December 2019, the author made further
submissions, in which he details that, but for timely remedial actions, he would be denied
rebates also for the years 2013–2020 and that his applications concerning those years have
not been ruled on. His complaints to various departments in the City of Cape Town and
other authorities had continued to be either ignored or not responded to substantively.
4.3
On 10 June 2020, the author communicated that the City of Cape Town had still not
provided him with the rebates requested and that it continued to fail to respond to his
correspondence. The author submits that the closure by the Public Protector of his case was
invalid and that he is not aware of any further action taken by the South African Human
Rights Commission.
B.
Committee’s consideration of admissibility
5.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of its rules of
procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol.
5.2
The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all available domestic
remedies, as required under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol. He brought the refusal of
his tax rebates applications to the attention of various departments in the City of Cape
Town and to the South African Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Public
Protector, the Western Cape provincial government, the office of the Presidency and other
government departments. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that he lacks the
health required to undergo the stress of a court application, as well as the necessary
financial resources, and that he has therefore addressed the aforementioned authorities
instead. Finally, the Committee notes the author’s contention that the City of Cape Town
would expend taxpayers’ money in judicial proceedings.
4