CRPD/C/10/D/4/2011 born on 6 December 1967. They are all Hungarian nationals. The authors claim to be victims of a violation by Hungary of their rights under article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Optional Protocol to the Convention entered into force for the State party on 3 May 2008. The authors are represented by counsel, János Fiala, of the Disability Rights Center. The facts as submitted by the authors 2. All six authors “suffer from intellectual disability”, and were placed under partial or general guardianship pursuant to judicial decisions.1 As an automatic consequence of their placement under guardianship, the authors’ names were removed from the electoral register, pursuant to article 70, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the State party that was applicable at the time, which provided that persons placed under total or partial guardianship did not have the right to vote. Due to this restriction on their legal capacity, the authors were prevented from participating in the Hungarian parliamentary elections held on 11 April 2010 and the municipal elections held on 3 October 2010. They remain disenfranchised to date and cannot therefore participate in elections. The complaint 3.1 The authors submit that, as persons under guardianship, the direct application of article 70, paragraph 5, of the Constitution automatically removed them from the electoral register. The decisions to incapacitate them in this way did not take into consideration their ability to vote, as they were automatically and indiscriminately disenfranchised pursuant to the Constitutional provision, regardless of the nature of their disability, their individual abilities or the scope of the incapacitation measure. The authors argue that they are able to understand politics and participate in elections. They maintain that this automatic ban is unjustified, and that it breaches article 29, read alone and in conjunction with article 12 of the Convention. 3.2 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors allege that no effective remedy was available to them. They claim that they could have submitted an application to have their guardianship lifted under article 21, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, but that this would have remedied the violation of their right to vote only if it had completely restored their legal capacity. This was neither possible nor desirable for the authors, who recognize their intellectual disability and acknowledge that they require support in managing their affairs in certain areas of their lives. Hungarian law only provides for one legal measure — guardianship (plenary or partial) — for persons with disabilities who require assistance. While challenging their guardianship under the Civil Code was the only available remedy, it did not constitute an effective remedy for the authors, as the courts do not have the power to consider and restore a person’s right to vote. The authors refer to the decision of the 1 Zsolt Bujdosó was placed under partial guardianship with general limitation on 23 November 2004, pursuant to a decision of the Gyula City Court; the limitation of his legal capacity was reviewed and upheld by decision of the Pest Central District Court on 14 October 2010. Jánosné Ildikó Márkus was placed under plenary guardianship on 17 February 2003 by decision of the Battonya City Court. Viktória Márton was placed under partial guardianship on 11 October 2008 by decision of the Budapest II and III District Court, with respect to application for social security benefits and disposal of such benefits, as well as regarding employment income. Sándor Mészáros was placed under partial guardianship with general limitation by decision of the Buda Central District Court on 2 June 2010. Gergely Polk was placed under partial guardianship with general limitation on 14 September 2004, pursuant to a decision of the Buda Central District Court. János Szabó was placed under partial guardianship with general limitation on 7 October 2003, by decision of the Budapest II and III District Court; his incapacitation was reviewed and upheld by the Pest Central District Court on 24 March 2009. 3