CRPD/C/10/D/4/2011 virtue of article 26, paragraph 2, of the Transitional Provisions, “a person under guardianship which restricts or excludes his or her legal capacity under an absolute sentence at the time of the coming into force of the Fundamental Law shall not have suffrage until such guardianship is terminated, or until a court establishes the existence of his suffrage” (emphasis added by the State party). The Transitional Provisions thus make it possible to address the issue of suffrage separately from that of placement under guardianship. 4.4 The State party further submits that Act CCI of 2011 on the Amendment of Certain Acts related to the Fundamental Law, which came into force on 31 December 2011, incorporated the provisions on the guardianship procedure, along with several other relevant provisions.4 As a result of these amendments, court decisions on the exclusion from suffrage are made in guardianship procedures. Placement under guardianship is not a ground for exclusion from suffrage. However, a decision must be made on exclusion from suffrage in respect of every person under guardianship. In their rulings on placement under guardianship that restrict or exclude legal capacity, and when reviewing guardianship, the courts decide on exclusion from suffrage. They exclude from suffrage any adult whose discretionary power required for exercising suffrage (a) has been significantly reduced, whether permanently or recurrently, due to his or her mental state, intellectual disability or addiction, or (b) is permanently missing in its entirety, due to his or her mental state or intellectual disability. The courts rely on expert opinions of forensic psychiatrists to decide on exclusion from suffrage. 4.5 Where a court excludes an adult from suffrage, the person under guardianship is not entitled to active or passive suffrage under article XXIII, paragraph 6, of the Fundamental Law. Active suffrage concerns a person’s right to cast a vote in an election for office, while passive suffrage concerns a person’s capacity to be elected to office. The exclusion, and the termination of the exclusion, may be requested by any person entitled to file for termination of guardianship. Consequently, a person under guardianship may reclaim suffrage without losing the protection offered by guardianship, provided that he or she is capable of exercising this right. 4.6 The State party adds that any exclusion from suffrage is subject to review in any procedure for the compulsory review of guardianship, which is to take place no later than five years after the guardianship ruling becomes absolute. Also, by virtue of the Transitional Provisions, the situation can now be reviewed in an extraordinary procedure at the request of any person entitled to file for a guardianship review (i.e. the person under guardianship, his or her spouse or registered partner, next of kin, brother or sister, guardian, guardianship authority, or prosecutor). Alternatively, the exclusion may be revised in the course of the next compulsory review. 4.7 As the relevant laws came into force very recently, the State party submits that it is not in a position to inform the Committee about their implementation in practice. It concludes that, in its view, by introducing the above-mentioned amendments, its laws now comply with article 29 of the Convention. Consequently, the State party calls for the authors’ request for legal amendment and non-pecuniary compensation to be dismissed by the Committee. 4 Act IV of 1959 on the Civil Code (sect. 15, para.2); Act C of 1997 on Electoral Procedure; and Act III of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure (sects. 311–312). 5