CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION for the deprivation of individuals of their right to vote “by express decision of a court of law”, on the basis of “mental incapacity” (item I.1.1, d, iv and v). The relevant item has, however, been the object of two “interpretative declarations”, specifically “on the participation of people with disabilities in elections”. The first of these declarations was adopted by the Venice Commission on 15-16 October 2010. It provided, very much in line with the wording of the Code itself, that “no person with a disability can be excluded from the right to vote ... on the basis of her/his physical and/or mental disability unless the deprivation of the right to vote ... is imposed by an individual decision of a court of law because of proven mental disability” (Venice Commission, Interpretative Declaration to the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters on the Participation of People with Disabilities in Elections, § 2, CDL-AD(2010)036). That position was criticised by the Council of Europe’s Committee of experts on the participation of people with disabilities in political and public life (CAHPAH-PPL) for not being “in line with the spirit” of the CRPD, in particular the provisions of Articles 12 and 29 (see Venice Commission, Information Note concerning the Interpretative Declaration of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters on the Participation of People with Disabilities in Elections, p. 2, CDL(2011)043). Consequently, the Venice Commission reconsidered the matter. In a new version of the interpretative declaration, adopted on 16-17 December 2011, it stated: “Universal suffrage is a fundamental principle of the European Electoral Heritage. People with disabilities may not be discriminated against in this regard, in conformity with Article 29 of the [CRPD] and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights” (Venice Commission, Revised Interpretative Declaration to the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters on the Participation of People with Disabilities in Elections, § 2, CDL-AD(2011)045; the reference to the Court’s case-law is to Alajos Kiss, cited above, §§ 43-44). The Venice Commission thus stands for a more nuanced approach than would appear from the wording of the Code of Good Practice. The other Council of Europe organ is the Commissioner for Human Rights. She intervened as a third party in the present case. In that capacity she argues resolutely that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 should be interpreted in the light of Article 29 of the CRPD and that “the right to vote of persons with disabilities should be upheld without exception” (see paragraph 48 of the judgment). 11. In conclusion, while I agree that the Spanish system under review pursued a legitimate aim (see paragraph 64 of the judgment), in my opinion it had a disproportionate effect on the applicant’s daughter’s right to vote. 32