CRPD/C/10/D/4/2011 7.5 Referring to the State party’s assertion that the courts would rely on the expert opinions of forensic psychiatrists in cases concerning disenfranchisement, the authors submit that these psychiatrists are trained to diagnose and treat mental illnesses, not administer intelligence quotient tests, evaluate social skills or otherwise assess the individual abilities of persons with intellectual disabilities. The authors further stress that there is currently no psychiatric protocol in the State party to assess “voting capacity”. As a consequence, the psychiatric assessment contemplated by the State party can only be arbitrary, replicating the practice of guardianship proceedings, where the existence of a disability itself is the only determinant of the psychiatric assessment, and thus of the court decision. 7.6 Turning to the State party’s contention that the Hungarian legal system is in conformity with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, the authors recall that the standards of the European Court are different from those of the Committee. The State party’s compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights is thus not decisive for the Committee. The authors add that in the Alajos Kiss v. Hungary decision, the European Court did not hold that an individual assessment, such as the one currently in force in the State party, complies with the European Convention. Rather, it ruled that a system based on automatic exclusion without an individual assessment would not comply with the Convention, thus leaving open the question of whether the system of individual assessment currently in place would be acceptable. 7.7 The authors conclude that the State party has failed to submit arguments that justify the disenfranchisement of persons with disabilities, or to demonstrate that such a system is in conformity with the Convention. The authors therefore renew their call for the Committee to (a) hold that the State party’s current system of individual assessment is in violation of article 29 of the Convention; (b) request the State party to amend its legislation so as to ban disenfranchisement on the basis of disability, be it automatic or based on an individual assessment of voting capacity; and (c) acknowledge the violation suffered by the authors and provide them with compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention. 8.2 While the Committee notes that the State party does not challenge the admissibility of the present communication, it is appropriate for the Committee to examine its admissibility. The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee and that it has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee further notes that the State party has not raised any objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, or identified any specific remedy that would have been available to the authors. The Committee thus considers that the requirements of article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol have been met. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 2 of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 8.3 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, their claims under articles 12 and 29 of the Convention. In the 11