CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION Since 2010, however, a number of things have changed. The CRPD, which had already entered into force in 2008, has been given a concrete content by the CRPD Committee. While some of the CRPD Committee’s interpretations may not be directly transposable to the Convention, others are. The CRPD Committee’s interpretation of the right to vote of persons with disabilities is one such relevant analysis. The majority prefer not to follow the CRPD Committee’s views. They opt for a cautious approach. As long as there is no consensus among the States Parties to the Convention to adapt their laws to the CRPD as interpreted by the CRPD Committee, they do not consider it the Court’s task to read into Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 an obligation for the States to do so. 18. The CRPD is based on the model of “inclusive equality”, implying among other things “the full recognition of humanity through inclusion in society” (CRPD Committee, General comment No. 6 (2018) on equality and non-discrimination, § 11, CRPD/C/GC/6). In a recent publication, which for obvious reasons I read with more than usual interest, Jenny Goldschmidt explains that inclusion also means “removing the barriers” that prevent people from enjoying their rights (see J. Goldschmidt, “The Implementation of the CRPD in the ECHR: Challenges and Opportunities”, in K. Lemmens, St. Parmentier and L. Reyntjens (eds.), Human Rights with a Human Touch. Liber Amicorum Paul Lemmens, Intersentia, Cambridge, 2020, (611), at 613). She focuses on the relevance of the CRPD, with its emphasis on inclusion, for the interpretation and application of the Convention (ibid., 614). She concludes her research as follows: “The CRPD challenges the [Court] to reconsider its own jurisprudence, as can be required to incorporate differences instead of reaffirming inequality by allowing exceptions or accommodations, which leave the excluding normative frames untouched. The progressive realisation of the rights of the [Convention] demands a more fundamental re-thinking of the cases and laws that are considered and an unveiling of the neutrality of the underlying perspectives. In some cases, the [Court] seems aware of this, but ... it seems often reluctant to take a more substantive approach” (ibid., 631). To reconsider the case-law is sometimes necessary. The present case evidently offered an opportunity to do so. Article 12 § 2 of the CRPD obliges the States Parties to the CRPD to recognise the legal capacity of all persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others. While the States Parties to Protocol No. 1 enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in the sphere of limitations of the right to vote, the Court has already accepted that that margin is relatively narrow when the restriction applies to the mentally disabled (see paragraph 55 of the judgment, referring to Alajos Kiss, cited above, § 42). Given the obligations imposed on the States by Article 12 of the CRPD, as clarified by the CRPD Committee, the Court should have 35