CRPD/C/10/D/4/2011 will be much larger than the number who could reasonably be considered “incapable of voting” under any scientifically acceptable test. 5.11 The interveners underscore the long-entrenched belief that persons with disabilities are incapable of managing their affairs, making competent decisions or participating in public affairs. They add that the professionals who participate in the assessment process, such as judges, psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers, are not immune to such prejudice. This is why any system that permits exclusion will produce a disproportionate number of disenfranchised persons with disabilities, which is one of the reasons why any such system should be abolished under the Convention.11 Article 29 of the Convention requires States parties to adapt their voting procedures to facilitate the exercise of the right to vote by persons with disabilities, and to ensure that they are able to cast a competent vote. Their capacity to vote should not be contested, and nobody should be forced to undergo an assessment of voting capacity as a precondition for participating in elections. State party’s observations on the third-party intervention 6.1 In its communication dated 30 January 2013, the State party submits that the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which came into force on 1 January 2012, significantly changed the regulation of suffrage of persons with disabilities. While the previous Constitution automatically excluded from suffrage all persons under guardianship, restricting or excluding their capacity in terms of any civil law election, the new Fundamental Law empowers the courts to remove the right to vote solely in the case of persons who completely lack legal capacity. Removal of the right to vote is possible only on the basis of an individual assessment of the person’s individual situation, and only if his or her legal capacity is limited to such extent that he or she is incapable of exercising his or her electoral rights. 6.2 The legislative change was intended primarily to implement the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and was also prompted by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Alajos Kiss v. Hungary. In the State party’s view, this provision in the Fundamental Law reflects a significant change that is in accordance with the spirit of the Convention and in full conformity with the requirements of the Alajos Kiss decision. 6.3 In the light of the prevailing legislative environment, the State party considers irrelevant the estimation of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability that a considerable number of individuals are excluded from suffrage based on their disability. The estimation is in fact an assumption based on the previous legislation, which automatically excluded from suffrage all persons under guardianship. As such, the data merely shows the number of people under guardianship. However, direct causality cannot be established, as the courts will need to make individual decisions regarding the potential exclusion of such persons from suffrage, as prescribed by the new legislation. 6.4 Consequently, the State party maintains its previous position, expressed in its observations on the merits of the communication, and calls on the Committee to dismiss the authors’ request for legal amendment and non-pecuniary compensation. 11 The interveners observe that some States, such as Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as well as several Canadian provinces and some states of the United States, have already prohibited all restrictions on the right to vote on the basis of disability. 9