Could Another Body Have Found Jurisdiction?

[pappu9265]

Whether the phrasing of Article 11 –which requires States to ‘take, in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disability in situation of risk’– does ‘create’ new obligations in situations of armed conflict is unclear. Somehow the Mangisto and al-Sayed case reveals that violations of IHL obligations can, thanks to Article 11, now be invoked as individualized enforceable rights. However, whether Article 11 CRPD added something to the obligations the State of Palestine has towards persons with disabilities under human rights and humanitarian law is not clarified. The Committee indeed found that Palestine’s failure amounted to violations of the right to phone number list life, the rights to liberty and security of the person, the prohibition from torture, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health, both independently and in connection with Article 11 of the CRPD. Perhaps the greatest advance in this case is the finding that there was a violation of the right to accessible and adequate healthcare, a socio-economic right that cannot be found in the European Convention, its Protocols or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


In the Mangisto and al-Sayed case, the CRPD Committee took the ‘uncommon’ step of referencing the jurisprudence of the ECtHR to establish that the complaints did indeed fall within Palestine’s jurisdiction. This is not trivial. The Committee has had many jurisprudential clashes with the ECtHR with regard to the interpretation of the rights of persons of disabilities. In particular, there is firm disagreement between the two bodies on the extent of the right of persons with psychosocial disabilities to equal recognition before the law (Compare CRPD Committee, Budjdoso v Hungary, and ECtHR, Strøbye and Roselind v.