CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022, Mental Disability Rights Initiative Serbia and v. Serbia

Inadmissibility decision; Subjects: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, HUMAN RIGHTS, SERBIA; [CRPD: Behindertenrechtskonvention, Übereinkommen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen; Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées]

Erwägungen (35 Absätze)

E. 1 and 2 (e)

E. 1.1 The authors of the communication are the non-governmental organizations Mental Disability Rights Initiative Serbia and Disability Rights International. They submit the communication on behalf of two persons with disabilities residing at the Duško Radović Home in Niš, Serbia at the time of submission, J.A., born on 11 October 2002, and M.M., whose date of birth is unknown and who passed away on 15 November 2021, both nationals

* Reissued for technical reasons on 12 June 2026. ** Adopted by the Committee at its thirty-fourth session (9–27 March 2026). *** The following members of the Committee participated in the consideration of the communication: Muhannad Salah Al-Azzeh, Magino Corporán Lorenzo, Gerel Dondovdorj, Gertrude Oforiwa Fefoame, Amalia Eva Gamio Ríos, Natalia Guala Beathyate, Kim Mi Yeon, Alfred Kouadio Kouassi, Abdelmajid Makni, Floyd Morris, Christopher Nwanoro, Inmaculada Placencia Porrero, Markus Schefer and Hiroshi Tamon. United Nations CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022* Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Distr.: General 30 April 2026 Original: English CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022

E. 1.2 On 10 June 2021, the Committee, acting under article 4 of the Optional Protocol, through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, requested the State Party to ensure immediate access to the national human rights institution, accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions with A status, and any other competent independent monitoring mechanism in order to examine the conditions and treatment of children at the Duško Radović Home and to take the measures necessary to adhere to the Convention while the case is under consideration by the Committee. A. Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties Factual background

E. 2 GE.26-05783 of Serbia. The authors claim that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 4 (1) and (2), 5, 7 (1), 12 to 17, 19, 23 to 25 and 28 of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 30 August 2009.

E. 2.1 On 1 November 2019, Disability Rights International conducted a one-hour visit to the Duško Radović Home for persons with disabilities in Niš, Serbia, which housed 12 children and adults with disabilities at the time and which the authors claim functioned like an institution. During its visit, Disability Rights International found instances of the “severe neglect” of residents, including J.A. and M.M.

E. 2.2 Prior to J.A.’s placement in the Duško Radović Home, his mother cared for him, until his health deteriorated on an unspecified date. The family moved frequently. For those reasons, and given that his mother had consented to workers of the Aleksinac Centre for Social Work caring for J.A., he was placed in the Dusko Radovic Home, where it was assessed by the Centre that his requirements would be best met. On 10 March 2015,1 he was placed there. Since neither his mother nor any other relative had agreed to be his guardian, the Centre appointed one of its employees as his guardian, to protect his rights and interests and considering his health condition and limited verbal communication.

E. 2.3 The authors note that J.A. spends most of his days curled up in a cage-like crib. Staff indicated that J.A. had a spine injury and that they did not move him. An expert in monitoring conditions in institutions who participated in the visit observed that J.A.’s muscles appeared to be severely contracted. Even though the expert tried to engage with him, he would not respond. The authors note that, according to a picture taken on his arrival at the Duško Radović Home, J.A. was sitting straight up in a supported wheelchair, he had thick hair and a lean but healthy complexion. However, it was hard to recognize him during the visit, as he was in the fetal position, had lost most of his hair and looked emaciated. According to the expert, J.A. would continue to deteriorate if he stayed at the Duško Radović Home. J.A. has been diagnosed with unspecified epilepsy, “severe mental retardation” and spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy; he requires a communication device, and he does not move, eat independently, respond to calls or tactile stimulation, establish eye contact or control his sphincters.

E. 2.4 M.M. was placed in the Centre for the Protection of Infants, Children and Youth in Belgrade 20 days after his birth, with his mother’s consent. On an unspecified date, he was moved to the Kulina Home for People with Developmental Disabilities. On 12 April 2007, when his placement was reviewed, his mother indicated that she and his father were unable to care for him, but that she wished to continue being his guardian. M.M. was transferred to the Duško Radović Home on 1 October 2012, when he was 16 years old. On 3 June 2015, the Second Basic Court in Belgrade deprived him of full legal capacity. By a decision of

E. 2.5 Staff at the Duško Radović Home told the authors that M.M. had cried and screamed continuously since his arrival. They eventually realized that he was in pain from a severe gum infection and took him to a dentist, who removed all his teeth. During the authors’ visit in 2019, his muscles appeared severely contracted and he appeared emaciated. M.M. remained in the same position during the visit. The authors argue that, based on pictures taken 1 The authors indicate that they were told that J.A. was placed in the Duško Radović Home in 2017. CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022 GE.26-05783 3 on his transfer and during the visit, he looked much better after having left the Kulina Home for People with Developmental Disabilities, which the authors described as “abusive”. At the time of the visit, his arms and legs had lost all muscle mass, he had sunken facial features and seemed to have kyphosis (outward curvature of the spine). He spent his days completely bent over in a stroller, with his mouth stuck to the railing that had been padded for that purpose. Staff indicated that healthcare providers refused to treat his gum problem further. The expert who participated in the visit found that his state was irreversible. Staff told the authors that M.M. had no family members who visited him and that they had no contact details for them. According to the State Party, M.M. was diagnosed with “profound mental retardation”, Down syndrome and epilepsy, required a communication device and did not respond to tactile stimulation, control his sphincters, walk, establish contact with other children or orient himself in time or space.

E. 2.6 Staff at the Duško Radović Home told the authors during the visit that there were no plans to reintegrate J.A. and M.M. in the community or, in the case of J.A., with his family. They would therefore remain institutionalized indefinitely. The authors note that the Committee has expressed its concern regarding legislation authorizing the deprivation of liberty based on disability and about the number of children with disabilities living in institutions in the State Party.2 They also note that the State Party has adopted a policy that prescribes the construction of small group homes for children.

E. 2.7 The authors argue that J.A. and M.M. were unable to exhaust domestic remedies or to consent to the submission of the present communication as they were deprived of their liberty and physically unable to file a complaint due to their disabilities and the neglect to which they had been exposed. In addition, their guardianship prevented them de jure and de facto from providing consent. On an unspecified date, the authors requested the Aleksinac Centre for Social Work for the contact details of J.A.’s parents or guardian. On 4 August 2020, the Centre responded that J.A. was under its guardianship and that his mother had “reduced intellectual capacities and limited parental capacities”. According to the authors, the Centre refused to provide J.A.’s mother’s contact information, and they therefore have no means of contacting her. Staff at the Duško Radović Home claimed that the whereabouts of M.M.’s family were unknown.

E. 2.8 As for exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs, which oversees the Aleksinac Centre for Social Work and related institutions, has stated that a person with disabilities in an institution may report abuse to a social worker or to the Centre’s case worker assigned to his or her case. However, according to the authors, in practice, a child may never get to see his or her case manager. Staff at the Centre were unable to say what could be done if a child needed to report abuse. Institutions may assign a “key staff member” responsible for reporting abuse, but, if staff is complicit, the child would be left unprotected. If the child is non-verbal, he or she would have a greater dependency on staff. According to the Office of the Ombudsperson of Serbia, incidents of abuse in institutions are accordingly not reported. The authors argue that, for the purposes of exhausting domestic remedies, access to and participation in proceedings must be guaranteed “personally and directly” to the victims.3 According to the authors, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that a person under guardianship of the institution detaining him or her is prevented from pursuing independently any legal remedy of judicial character to challenge his or her continued detention.4 The authors argue that, in the present case, the Aleksinac Centre for Social Work has a conflict of interest, given its responsibility for the abuse against J.A. and M.M. and for reporting such abuses.

E. 2.9 On 15 November 2021, M.M. passed away. 2 CRPD/C/SRB/CO/1, paras. 13 and 26. 3 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 5/02 (Admissibility), Case No. 12.080, Sergio Schiavini and María Teresa Schnack de Schiavini v. Argentina, 27 February 2002, para. 52; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 72/03 (Admissibility), Case No. 12.159, Gabriel Egisto Santillan v. Argentina, 22 October 2003, para. 57.

E. 4 GE.26-05783

Complaint

3.1

The authors submit that the institutionalization and segregation of J.A. and M.M. at

the Duško Radović Home violated their rights under articles 5, 12, 14, 19, 23 and 28 of the

Convention. They affirm that the institutionalization of children and adults with disabilities

is discriminatory and in breach of article 5 of the Convention.5 The Duško Radović Home

functions as an institution: residents cannot decide who their caregiver is, they are isolated

from community life, they do not make decisions over their day to day lives, they do not get

to decide whom to live with, their routine is set by staff, they only languish in a wheelchair

or bed cage and all residents have a disability. J.A.’s and M.M.’s indefinite segregation in

that setting was in breach of article 19 of the Convention. The lack of any support to allow

the residents to make choices about their lives violates article 12 of the Convention. J.A.,

M.M. and all other residents at the Duško Radović Home arrived there as children and have

remained there segregated indefinitely, in breach of article 14 of the Convention.

3.2

According to the authors, it was the State Party’s obligation under articles 23 (3) and

(5), 19 and 28 of the Convention to provide the social support and services to J.A. and his

mother to prevent their separation and J.A.’s segregation in an institution, in violation of his

right to grow up in a family. The State Party’s failure to provide these services and J.A.’s

placement in a segregated setting constitute a breach of those provisions, read in conjunction

with article 5 of the Convention.

3.3

The authors argue that, whereas M.M.’s family situation is unknown, if he was unable

to remain with his biological or wider family, it was the State Party’s obligation under article

23 (5) of the Convention to ensure that he, as a child, remained in his community. The failure

to do so when M.M. was a child also constituted a breach of that provision.

3.4

The authors claim that the discrimination that M.M. has faced in access to healthcare

for his gums was in violation of articles 5 and 25 of the Convention. The lack of access to

health services, treatment and rehabilitation that M.M. and J.A. have faced to treat their gum

pain and contractures, respectively, also constitute a breach of their right to health.6 Their

placement in an institution is itself a form of violence, in contravention of their rights under

article 16 (1) of the Convention. The institution has insufficient staff to care for them, and

they face social isolation and limited access to services. J.A.’s body was severely contracted,

and his lack of movement and repositioning was painful, whereas M.M. had continuous gum

pain, in violation of their rights under article 15 of the Convention.

3.5

According to the authors, the residents of the Duško Radović Home do not have

effective mechanisms to denounce abuse and gain access to justice and the guardianship over

J.A. and M.M. has prevented them from reporting abuse and gain access to judicial remedies

personally and directly, in breach of their rights under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.

J.A. and M.M. have not attended school in an inclusive setting and have not received an

education enabling them to participate effectively and freely in society, in breach of their

rights under article 24 of the Convention. The authors assert a violation of J.A.’s and M.M.’s

rights under articles 7 and 4 (1) and (2) of the Convention.

3.6

The authors request the Committee to call upon the State Party: to reintegrate J.A.

with his mother, if possible, and to provide adequate support to them so that they may live

safely in the community; to end the segregation and institutionalization of J.A. and ensure

that he has the support and services required to live in a family environment; if his immediate

family cannot care for him, to provide support for him to live in alternative care in a family

setting consistent with his will and preferences; to provide comprehensive healthcare,

rehabilitation and education to J.A., consistent with his will and preferences; to provide

support to J.A. so that he can exercise the legal capacity in making choices about care and

placement; to provide support so that J.A. can have access to age-appropriate complaint and

redress mechanisms; and to ensure the monitoring of institutions. They argue that the State

Party should create a system of family-based support to allow for children with disabilities

to live and grow up with families, ensure community-based support for all adults with

E. 4.1 In its observations dated 10 March 2023 and 19 June 2023, the State Party observed that the Office of the Ombudsperson had not requested the implementation of the Committee’s request for interim measures. If it were to file such a request, the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs would consider it, and the Office of the Ombudsperson would be provided with access to the Duško Radović Home. On 23 December 2022, Mental Disability Rights Initiative Serbia requested authorization from the Duško Radović Home to conduct a visit. However, the Niš Institute of Public Health advised against any such visits at the time due to the risk of respiratory infections related to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The State Party disputes that the authors were unable to obtain information about J.A. and M.M. beyond the visit of 1 November 2019, as they never sent another request to be allowed to visit the Home or to receive more information on the alleged victims.

E. 4.2 The State Party argues that the authors have not provided any proof or substantiation of their claim of neglect of persons with disabilities in group homes. The State Party observes that the Duško Radović Home is a so-called small home community, which, with a maximum capacity of 12 beneficiaries, is fully adapted to the requirements of its residents. The Home has a warm family atmosphere, the conditions are humane and residents have access to education, healthcare and cultural institutions, among other things. Every beneficiary has a personalized space.

E. 4.3 The State Party describes the various forms of daily care and support provided to J.A. to meet his basic requirements, preserve his existing capacities and stimulate his psychomotor capacities. The State Party notes that protection plans are drawn up annually and individually based on the beneficiary’s requirements, are monitored monthly and may be changed.

E. 4.4 The State Party notes that, on 17 March 2021, a delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment visited the Duško Radović Home and had no negative observations regarding the treatment of beneficiaries. The State Party asserts that the aforementioned information demonstrates that the authors’ allegations are false. It therefore requests the Committee to dismiss the communication as unfounded. Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

E. 5 disabilities to avoid segregation and facilitate age- and gender-appropriate, independent human rights monitoring of all institutions. State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

E. 5.1 In their comments dated 13 September 2023 and 10 July 2025, the authors reiterated that the guardianship of J.A. and M.M. hindered their ability to report abuse and gain access to judicial remedies, which must be directly accessible to them. Children’s right to access justice should be enforced through independent monitoring and systemic access to justice. Persons with disabilities detained at the Duško Radović Home should have the ability to challenge their detention on their own and to the fulfilment of their right to an effective remedy.

E. 5.2 The authors emphasize that, in the present case, the authority responsible for the violations exercises guardianship over J.A. and M.M. They note that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment found that “the safeguards surrounding the placement of residents and the operation of the guardianship system remain deficient” in the State Party.7 They assert that there is no requirement in international law for civil society organizations to lodge complaints on behalf of detainees; instead, it recognizes the right of victims to access to justice personally and directly. Therefore, the role of civil society organizations is not to exhaust remedies on behalf of the alleged victims when there are no effective mechanisms by which to do so.

E. 5.3 The authors tried to gain access to the Duško Radović Home in December 2022 and

August 2023, but it refused to grant them access on the grounds of health risks related to the

COVID-19 pandemic. However, access to independent monitoring cannot be suspended

during health emergencies,8 and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has requested the State Party to ease

restrictions imposed in places of deprivation of liberty and to allow visits to persons deprived

of their liberty.9

State Party’s additional observations

6.1

In its additional observations dated 3 September 2025, the State Party argued that

J.A.’s diagnoses indicated that he was unable to express himself or understand and that the

guardianship of the Aleksinac Centre for Social Work over him therefore ensured the

protection of his rights and interests. However, the guardianship is not final, and if his mother

or another relative expressed interest in taking on this role, it would be accommodated if it

was in his best interests. Family members and third parties retain the possibility of claiming

a violation of his rights.

6.2

The State Party argues that the authors’ claim that guardianship prevents affected

persons from enforcing their rights or gaining access to the courts is unfounded. The

assessment of how beneficiaries should be protected is conducted on an individual level,

considering the person’s requirements, health and the modalities of protection. Living in a

family or foster family is not always possible, as the family may be dysfunctional or it may

be unable to respond to the person’s requirements. A person is only removed from the family

if the latter cannot care for the person or if it is in the latter’s interest. A relocation is

temporary and is aimed at strengthening the family so that it can take care of the person later.

If the Centre for Social Work cannot provide adequate protection, the person is assessed and

placed in a social welfare institution temporarily, and an attempt is made to find a less

restrictive environment.

6.3

The State Party disputes the authors’ arguments regarding restrictions on access to

institutions. The Office of the Ombudsperson, in the capacity as national mechanism for the

prevention of torture, conducts regular visits, while the Ministry of Labour, Employment,

Veterans and Social Affairs carefully reviews relevant reports and monitors institutions’

conduct. In June 2025, the Sub-Committee on Prevention of Torture visited the State Party

and discussed deinstitutionalization processes with the authorities.

6.4

The State Party submits that J.A.’s mother is unable to care for him and has not shown

any interest in doing so during his stay in the Duško Radović Home. The Aleksinac Centre

for Social Work and staff at the Home have made every effort to maintain their relationship,

but their contact has become increasingly rare. The State Party argues that all available

healthcare is provided to J.A. and that it is adapted to preserve the vitality of his muscles and

joints without overstimulating him. Staff work with J.A. to teach him basic life skills, prevent

regression and monitor his health.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

E. 7 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, “Report to the Serbian Government on the periodic visit to Serbia from 9 to 19 March 2021”. CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022 6 GE.26-05783

E. 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 70 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

E. 7.2 The Committee notes that M.M. passed away on 15 November 2021. In the absence of any information in the case file to the contrary, the Committee considers that M.M.’s death has rendered the part of the present communication submitted on his behalf as devoid of purpose.10

E. 7.3 With regard to the part of the communication submitted on behalf of J.A., the Committee notes that the authors have done so without his consent. Under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, communications can be brought by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of the Convention. Pursuant to rule 67 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, a communication submitted on behalf of an individual or group of individuals must be submitted with the express written consent of the individual or group, unless the author can justify acting on their behalf without such consent. At issue therefore is whether the authors have adequately justified the submission of the communication without J.A.’s consent. In this regard and pursuant to rule 70 (2) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and article 12 of the Convention, the Committee must take into account whether the submission was in accordance with J.A.’s wishes and preferences.11

E. 7.4 In examining the authors’ explanation, the Committee notes that the authors visited the Duško Radović Home on 1 November 2019 and documented J.A.’s situation, including his living circumstances, his health and his family background. The Committee also notes that the authors filed two further requests to be allowed to visit the Duško Radović Home, which the latter refused, and requested the contact details of J.A.’s mother, which the Aleksinac Centre for Social Work did not provide. The Committee therefore considers that the authors undertook significant efforts to establish further contact with J.A., who remains under State guardianship. The Committee also considers that J.A.’s placement in the Home, the latter’s refusal to allow for subsequent visits by the authors and the refusal by the Aleksinac Centre for Social Work to provide them with the contact details of his mother have isolated him and have obstructed any possibility for him to communicate his consent, or absence thereof, to the submission of the communication. The Committee also takes into consideration that the authors advance the rights of J.A., as a person with disabilities, including by promoting his deinstitutionalization. In view of the foregoing, as well as the absence of any indications that the submission of the communication is not in accordance with J.A.’s will and preferences, the Committee considers that the authors have adequately justified that they have a legitimate interest in acting on behalf of J.A. and that they could not reasonably obtain access to him.12 The Committee therefore concludes that the authors have justified, for the purposes of article 1 of the Optional Protocol and rule 67 of the rules of procedure, that they are acting on behalf of J.A. without his consent.

E. 7.5 The Committee must next determine whether the authors have exhausted all available remedies under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee takes note that the authors have not made any attempts to engage domestic remedies. In this regard, the Committee notes their arguments that access to remedies must be guaranteed personally and directly to victims, that, in the present case, J.A.’s guardianship precludes this and that it is not for civil society organizations to exhaust remedies on behalf of alleged victims.

E. 7.6 The Committee notes, however, that article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol requires that the authors, as representatives of J.A. before the Committee, demonstrate that they have exhausted domestic remedies by raising the issues brought to the Committee before the national courts. The Committee notes that this provision does not provide for a separate exception on the sole grounds that the author represents a person who may, de jure or de facto, require representation domestically. Likewise, the Committee recalls that, in communications Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia and Al-Awdah v. Saudi Arabia,13 the Committee considered whether the authors, who were the representatives of the victims, had justified the non-use of domestic remedies with reference to the factual circumstances of those cases, including the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies and the danger of availing themselves thereof. In the present case, the Committee must likewise determine whether the factual circumstances justify applying one of the exceptions provided for by article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol, in particular whether the authors could not have engaged domestic remedies on J.A.’s behalf. In this regard, the Committee notes that the authors have not contested the State Party’s observation according to which family members and third parties may file a claim of a violation of J.A.’s rights domestically. The Committee therefore cannot

E. 8 CRPD/C/5, para. 136.

E. 9 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, “Report to the Serbian Government on the periodic visit to Serbia from 9 to 19 March 2021”.

E. 10 Ferrer Manils v. Spain (CRPD/C/26/D/79/2020), para. 9. CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022 GE.26-05783 7

E. 11 P.L. et al. v. France (CRPD/C/28/D/59/2019), para. 11.2.

E. 12 M.L.et al. v. Georgia (CRC/C/96/D/144/2021), para. 10.5.

E. 13 Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia (CRPD/C/30/D/84/2020), para. 12.4; Al-Awdah v. Saudi Arabia (CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021), para. 8.6. CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022 8 GE.26-05783 accept the authors’ argument that J.A.’s guardianship precluded engagement of domestic remedies. The Committee thus considers that the authors have not justified the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Committee therefore declares the communication inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol. C. Conclusion 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That consideration of the communication submitted on behalf of J.A. should be discontinued; (b) That the communication submitted on behalf of M.M. is inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol; (c) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State Party and to the authors.

Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)

GE.26-05783 (E)

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 2 of the

Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 103/2022**, ***

Communication submitted by:

Mental Disability Rights Initiative Serbia and

Disability Rights International

Alleged victims:

J.A. and M.M.

State Party:

Serbia

Date of communication:

7 June 2022 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decisions taken pursuant to rules 64 and 68 of

the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted

to the State Party on 20 December 2022 (not

issued in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

26 March 2026

Subject matter:

Institutionalization of two persons with

disabilities

Procedural issues:

Standing; substantiation of claims

Substantive issues:

General obligations under the Convention;

discrimination on the grounds of disability; equal

recognition before the law; liberty of person;

freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment and punishment; living

independently and being included in the

community; family rights; education; health

Articles of the Convention:

4 (1) and (2), 5, 7 (1), 12–17, 19, 23–25 and 28

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

1 and 2 (e)

1.1

The authors of the communication are the non-governmental organizations Mental

Disability Rights Initiative Serbia and Disability Rights International. They submit the

communication on behalf of two persons with disabilities residing at the Duško Radović

Home in Niš, Serbia at the time of submission, J.A., born on 11 October 2002, and M.M.,

whose date of birth is unknown and who passed away on 15 November 2021, both nationals

* Reissued for technical reasons on 12 June 2026.

** Adopted by the Committee at its thirty-fourth session (9–27 March 2026).

*** The following members of the Committee participated in the consideration of the communication:

Muhannad Salah Al-Azzeh, Magino Corporán Lorenzo, Gerel Dondovdorj, Gertrude Oforiwa

Fefoame, Amalia Eva Gamio Ríos, Natalia Guala Beathyate, Kim Mi Yeon, Alfred Kouadio Kouassi,

Abdelmajid Makni, Floyd Morris, Christopher Nwanoro, Inmaculada Placencia Porrero, Markus

Schefer and Hiroshi Tamon.

United Nations

CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022*

Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities

Distr.: General

30 April 2026

Original: English

CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022

GE.26-05783

of Serbia. The authors claim that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 4 (1)

and (2), 5, 7 (1), 12 to 17, 19, 23 to 25 and 28 of the Convention. The Optional Protocol

entered into force for the State Party on 30 August 2009.

1.2

On 10 June 2021, the Committee, acting under article 4 of the Optional Protocol,

through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, requested the

State Party to ensure immediate access to the national human rights institution, accredited by

the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions with A status, and any other

competent independent monitoring mechanism in order to examine the conditions and

treatment of children at the Duško Radović Home and to take the measures necessary to

adhere to the Convention while the case is under consideration by the Committee.

Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties

Factual background

2.1

On 1 November 2019, Disability Rights International conducted a one-hour visit to

the Duško Radović Home for persons with disabilities in Niš, Serbia, which housed 12

children and adults with disabilities at the time and which the authors claim functioned like

an institution. During its visit, Disability Rights International found instances of the “severe

neglect” of residents, including J.A. and M.M.

2.2

Prior to J.A.’s placement in the Duško Radović Home, his mother cared for him, until

his health deteriorated on an unspecified date. The family moved frequently. For those

reasons, and given that his mother had consented to workers of the Aleksinac Centre for

Social Work caring for J.A., he was placed in the Dusko Radovic Home, where it was

assessed by the Centre that his requirements would be best met. On 10 March 2015,1 he was

placed there. Since neither his mother nor any other relative had agreed to be his guardian,

the Centre appointed one of its employees as his guardian, to protect his rights and interests

and considering his health condition and limited verbal communication.

2.3

The authors note that J.A. spends most of his days curled up in a cage-like crib. Staff

indicated that J.A. had a spine injury and that they did not move him. An expert in monitoring

conditions in institutions who participated in the visit observed that J.A.’s muscles appeared

to be severely contracted. Even though the expert tried to engage with him, he would not

respond. The authors note that, according to a picture taken on his arrival at the Duško

Radović Home, J.A. was sitting straight up in a supported wheelchair, he had thick hair and

a lean but healthy complexion. However, it was hard to recognize him during the visit, as he

was in the fetal position, had lost most of his hair and looked emaciated. According to the

expert, J.A. would continue to deteriorate if he stayed at the Duško Radović Home. J.A. has

been diagnosed with unspecified epilepsy, “severe mental retardation” and spastic

quadriplegic cerebral palsy; he requires a communication device, and he does not move, eat

independently, respond to calls or tactile stimulation, establish eye contact or control his

sphincters.

2.4

M.M. was placed in the Centre for the Protection of Infants, Children and Youth in

Belgrade 20 days after his birth, with his mother’s consent. On an unspecified date, he was

moved to the Kulina Home for People with Developmental Disabilities. On 12 April 2007,

when his placement was reviewed, his mother indicated that she and his father were unable

to care for him, but that she wished to continue being his guardian. M.M. was transferred to

the Duško Radović Home on 1 October 2012, when he was 16 years old. On 3 June 2015,

the Second Basic Court in Belgrade deprived him of full legal capacity. By a decision of

4 March 2016, the Grocka Centre for Social Work appointed his mother as his guardian.

2.5

Staff at the Duško Radović Home told the authors that M.M. had cried and screamed

continuously since his arrival. They eventually realized that he was in pain from a severe

gum infection and took him to a dentist, who removed all his teeth. During the authors’ visit

in 2019, his muscles appeared severely contracted and he appeared emaciated. M.M.

remained in the same position during the visit. The authors argue that, based on pictures taken

1 The authors indicate that they were told that J.A. was placed in the Duško Radović Home in 2017.

CRPD/C/34/D/103/2022

GE.26-05783

on his transfer and during the visit, he looked much better after having left the Kulina Home

for People with Developmental Disabilities, which the authors described as “abusive”. At the

time of the visit, his arms and legs had lost all muscle mass, he had sunken facial features

and seemed to have kyphosis (outward curvature of the spine). He spent his days completely

bent over in a stroller, with his mouth stuck to the railing that had been padded for that

purpose. Staff indicated that healthcare providers refused to treat his gum problem further.

The expert who participated in the visit found that his state was irreversible. Staff told the

authors that M.M. had no family members who visited him and that they had no contact

details for them. According to the State Party, M.M. was diagnosed with “profound mental

retardation”, Down syndrome and epilepsy, required a communication device and did not

respond to tactile stimulation, control his sphincters, walk, establish contact with other

children or orient himself in time or space.

2.6

Staff at the Duško Radović Home told the authors during the visit that there were no

plans to reintegrate J.A. and M.M. in the community or, in the case of J.A., with his family.

They would therefore remain institutionalized indefinitely. The authors note that the

Committee has expressed its concern regarding legislation authorizing the deprivation of

liberty based on disability and about the number of children with disabilities living in

institutions in the State Party.2 They also note that the State Party has adopted a policy that

prescribes the construction of small group homes for children.

2.7

The authors argue that J.A. and M.M. were unable to exhaust domestic remedies or to

consent to the submission of the present communication as they were deprived of their liberty

and physically unable to file a complaint due to their disabilities and the neglect to which

they had been exposed. In addition, their guardianship prevented them de jure and de facto

from providing consent. On an unspecified date, the authors requested the Aleksinac Centre

for Social Work for the contact details of J.A.’s parents or guardian. On 4 August 2020, the

Centre responded that J.A. was under its guardianship and that his mother had “reduced

intellectual capacities and limited parental capacities”. According to the authors, the Centre

refused to provide J.A.’s mother’s contact information, and they therefore have no means of

contacting her. Staff at the Duško Radović Home claimed that the whereabouts of M.M.’s

family were unknown.

2.8

As for exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Ministry of Labour, Employment,

Veteran and Social Affairs, which oversees the Aleksinac Centre for Social Work and related

institutions, has stated that a person with disabilities in an institution may report abuse to a

social worker or to the Centre’s case worker assigned to his or her case. However, according

to the authors, in practice, a child may never get to see his or her case manager. Staff at the

Centre were unable to say what could be done if a child needed to report abuse. Institutions

may assign a “key staff member” responsible for reporting abuse, but, if staff is complicit,

the child would be left unprotected. If the child is non-verbal, he or she would have a greater

dependency on staff. According to the Office of the Ombudsperson of Serbia, incidents of

abuse in institutions are accordingly not reported. The authors argue that, for the purposes of

exhausting domestic remedies, access to and participation in proceedings must be guaranteed

“personally and directly” to the victims.3 According to the authors, the European Court of

Human Rights has stated that a person under guardianship of the institution detaining him or

her is prevented from pursuing independently any legal remedy of judicial character to

challenge his or her continued detention.4 The authors argue that, in the present case, the

Aleksinac Centre for Social Work has a conflict of interest, given its responsibility for the

abuse against J.A. and M.M. and for reporting such abuses.

2.9

On 15 November 2021, M.M. passed away.

2 CRPD/C/SRB/CO/1, paras. 13 and 26.

3 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 5/02 (Admissibility), Case No. 12.080,

Sergio Schiavini and María Teresa Schnack de Schiavini v. Argentina, 27 February 2002, para. 52;

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 72/03 (Admissibility), Case No. 12.159,

Gabriel Egisto Santillan v. Argentina, 22 October 2003, para. 57.

4 European Court of Human Rights, Shtukaturov v. Russia, Application No. 44009/05, Judgment of

27 March 2008, para. 123.