CRPD/C/10/D/4/2011 absence of other impediments to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares these claims admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has considered this communication in the light of all the information received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 9.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that the automatic deletion of their names from the electoral registers, by application of article 70, paragraph 5, of the Constitution in force at the time of submission of their communication, breached article 29, read alone and in conjunction with article 12 of the Convention. The authors claim, more specifically, that their automatic disenfranchisement regardless of the nature of their disability and their individual abilities was discriminatory and unjustified. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that, as article 70, paragraph 5, of the Constitution was repealed with the adoption of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, and that article 26, paragraph 2, of the Transitional Provisions of the Fundamental Law provides for an individualized assessment of a person’s right to vote, based on his or her legal capacity, its laws are now in conformity with article 29 of the Convention. 9.3 The Committee observes that the State party has merely described, in the abstract, the new legislation applicable to persons under guardianship, stating that it has brought it into conformity with article 29 of the Convention, without showing how this regime specifically affects the authors, and the extent to which it respects their rights under article 29 of the Convention. The State party has not responded to the authors’ contention that they were prevented from voting in the 2010 parliamentary elections, and remain disenfranchised pursuant to their placement under guardianship, despite the legislative changes introduced. 9.4 The Committee recalls that article 29 of the Convention requires States parties to ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, including by guaranteeing their right to vote. Article 29 does not provide for any reasonable restriction or exception for any group of persons with disabilities. Therefore, an exclusion of the right to vote on the basis of a perceived or actual psychosocial or intellectual disability, including a restriction pursuant to an individualized assessment, constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability, within the meaning of article 2 of the Convention. The Committee refers to its concluding observations on Tunisia, in which it recommended “the urgent adoption of legislative measures to ensure that persons with disabilities, including persons who are currently under guardianship or trusteeship, can exercise their right to vote and participate in public life, on an equal basis with others” (emphasis added).12 The Committee further refers to its concluding observations on Spain, in which it expressed similar concern over the fact that the right to vote of persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities can be restricted if the person concerned has been deprived of his or her legal capacity, or has been placed in an institution.13 The Committee considers that the same principles apply to the present case. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that article XXIII, paragraph 6, of the Fundamental Law, which allows courts to deprive persons with intellectual disability of their right to vote and to be elected, is in breach of article 29 of the Convention, as is article 26, paragraph 2, of the Transitional Provisions of the Fundamental Law. 12 13 12 CRPD/C/TUN/CO/1, para. 35. CRPD/C/ESP/CO/1, para. 47.