CRPD/C/10/D/4/2011 Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 7.1 On 13 August 2012, the authors provided their comments on the State party’s observations. They submit that the State party did not contest the fact that their right to vote under article 29 of the Convention had been violated by the removal of their names from the list of voters in the 2010 parliamentary elections. The State party’s arguments refer to the legislative steps that have been taken since then to comply with article 29 of the Convention. According to the authors, the State party has not offered any justification or explanation as to why the authors of the present communication were prevented from participating in the 2010 elections. The legislative steps that have been taken since then have no effect on the harm already suffered in 2010. The authors add that they received no redress, no recognition of the violation of their rights or any other moral satisfaction or compensation. The measures cited by the State party could only ensure that their right to vote is not violated in the next parliamentary elections in 2014. 7.2 The authors reject the State party’s contention that it has taken the necessary legislative steps to address the alleged violation since the submission of the authors’ communication. The authors stress that on 1 January 2012, Hungary’s new Fundamental Law came into force, replacing the previous Constitution. Under article XXIII, paragraph 6, of the Fundamental Law, the court can limit the right to vote of persons who do not have the necessary capacity to vote. To enforce this provision, the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Act on Electoral Procedure were also amended. As a result of these changes, the courts can decide separately on the disenfranchisement of a person under guardianship in proceedings concerning the restriction or restoration of legal capacity. While the laws in force in 2010 automatically excluded all persons under guardianship from the electoral register, courts will now decide on the right to vote independently from placement under guardianship, on the basis of an individualized assessment. Despite these changes, the authors stress that the courts can decide on disenfranchisement only in guardianship proceedings; there is no provision for separate proceedings to limit the right to vote. All persons under guardianship are persons with disabilities. Their disenfranchisement is specifically based upon their intellectual disability, and is therefore discriminatory. 7.3 The authors add that a vote is a subjective choice, linked to personal preferences. While persons with disabilities are therefore not the only group that experiences difficulty in exercising their suffrage, they are nevertheless singled out by the State party for disenfranchisement. The authors add that the State party has other means at its disposal to increase the voting competence of citizens, such as improving civic education standards, raising awareness about the electoral process, and providing specific assistance to vulnerable groups, as required by article 29 of the Convention. 7.4 The authors reiterate that, since the State party’s system is based on individual assessment and only targets persons with disabilities, it cannot be in compliance with article 29 of the Convention, which does not provide for any exception to the universal right to vote. The enforcement of the disenfranchisement system also raises issues, as according to the Transitional Provisions of the Fundamental Law, all persons currently under guardianship will continue to be disenfranchised until their right to vote is restored. This applies to the authors, who remain disenfranchised. As no reassessment of voting rights has been announced or implemented by the State party, only persons who submit individual court applications to restore their right to vote will be assessed by the courts. Also, no legal, financial or other assistance is contemplated under these proceedings, which places persons under guardianship in an unfair and disadvantageous position as compared to persons without disabilities. The authors contend that the State Party should have declared that all persons who are currently disenfranchised would regain their right to vote, unless it has been revoked by a court decision. 10