CRPD/C/10/D/4/2011 under guardianship. These restrictions arise directly from the status of persons with disabilities, and must therefore be rejected as contradicting article 29 of the Convention. In addition, some States disenfranchise people with disabilities on the basis of an individual assessment of their right to vote. A common justification of such evaluations of voting capacity is the proportional nature of restrictions on this fundamental right. The European Court of Human Rights examined and rejected this argument when assessing the State party’s practice of disenfranchisement on the basis of guardianship in the case of Alajos Kiss v. Hungary. The State party argued that its measure constituted proportionate interference with the right to vote. However, the European Court rejected that argument, holding that disenfranchisement on the basis of guardianship “without an individualised judicial evaluation” of a person’s ability to vote constitutes disproportionate interference, and is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.8 The ruling, however, left open the possibility that disenfranchisement could be acceptable under the European Convention with an individualized assessment of voting capacity, and that any such measure should be analysed and decided on in the framework of proportionality. 5.5 The interveners invite the Committee to consider the present case beyond the narrow scope of the violation of the authors’ human rights in the State party, contrary to article 29 of the Convention, and to rule explicitly on the other question raised by this case, namely that subjecting persons with disabilities to individualized assessments of their voting capacity is in itself a violation of article 29 of the Convention. According to the interveners, such a decision, adopted with a compelling explanation that sheds light on the reasons behind the provisions of the Convention, would be a very effective tool to convince States parties and allay any concerns national stakeholders might have in implementing article 29. The Committee could also strongly influence the understanding of the European Court of Human Rights and other regional and national courts and tribunals, all of which are likely to be approached on the same issue, and thereby strengthen the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities worldwide. This approach would be entirely consistent with the purpose of the Convention — to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities (art. 1), as every person who is disenfranchised through an individual assessment suffers a violation of his or her right to vote, but very few can seek justice before the Committee. Nor can it be the Committee’s task to remedy every instance of disenfranchisement, as this would be simply impossible due to the number of victims of such measures, considering all the countries where these violations are taking place. According to the interveners, in order to ensure that the right to vote can in fact be enjoyed by all persons with disabilities, the Committee must address the situation of those who are not currently before it but who are similarly restricted. 5.6 Turning to the substance of the justification advanced by the State party, the interveners submit that the right to vote — a fundamental human right — should never be subject to a proportionality assessment and justification, because disenfranchisement could never be proportional interference, for three central reasons: (a) capacity assessments constitute discrimination on the basis of disability; (b) they inevitably result in disenfranchising capable individuals; and (c) in practice, their application leads to the disenfranchisement of a large number of persons with disabilities. (a) Capacity assessment as discrimination on the basis of disability 5.7 Assessments of voting capacity rest on the assumption that it is permissible to protect the integrity of the political system from individuals who are unable to formulate a 8 Application No. 38832/06, judgement of 20 May 2010, para. 44. 7