CRPD/C/20/D/23/2014 7.4 The Committee also notes that on 20 March 2009, other victims of similar violent acts brought their case to the Constitutional Court of the United Republic of Tanzania under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, and that at the time of the examination of the present complaint, more than nine years later, the matter has still not been heard. In this connection, the Committee notes the difficulties faced by the High Court in composing the bench of three judges that must decide on the merits of each application submitted under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. In such circumstances, the Committee does not find it reasonable to require that the author should have gone to court to initiate additional proceedings of an unpredictable duration, such as civil proceedings or additional proceedings before the High Court under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. 35 7.5 The Committee recalls that, under article 1 of the Convention, persons with disabilities include, but are not limited to, those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. The Committee also recalls that: “Albinism is a relatively rare, non-contagious, genetically inherited condition that affects people worldwide regardless of ethnicity or gender. It results from a significant deficit in the production of melanin and is characterized by the partial or complete absence of pigment in the skin, hair and eyes … The most common and visible type is oculocutaneous albinism, which affects the skin, hair and eyes … Lack of melanin in the eyes results in high sensitivity to bright light and significant vision impairment, with the level of severity varying from one person to another. This vision impairment often cannot be completely corrected. In addition, one of the most serious health implications of albinism is vulnerability to skin cancer, which remains a life-threatening condition for most persons with albinism.”36 A human rights-based model of disability requires the diversity of persons with disabilities to be taken into account (preamble to the Convention, para. (i)) together with the interaction between individuals with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers (preamble to the Convention, para. (e)). 37 In view thereof and noting that the State party does not question the competence ratione materiae of the Committee to address the author’s complaint, the Committee considers it necessary to reiterate that albinism falls within the definition of disability as enshrined in article 1 of the Convention.38 7.6 As regards the author’s claim under article 4 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, in view of its general character, this article does not in principle give rise to free-standing claims, and can only be invoked in conjunction with other substantive rights guaranteed under the Convention.39 The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claim under article 4 read alone is inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 As regards the author’s claims under article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes the author’s argument that the State party failed to take appropriate and adequate measures to raise awareness throughout society, which led to discrimination and insecurity for persons with albinism, and that the State party has taken no initiative to end this situation. However, the Committee also notes that these allegations are submitted in general terms, and that the author was never deprived of his liberty in the sense of article 14 which relates to any form of detention or institutionalization of persons with disability. 40 The Committee therefore considers that this part of the complaint is inadmissible for lack of substantiation, under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. 7.8 There being no other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. 35 36 37 38 39 40 X v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 7.4. A/HRC/34/59, paras. 15–16. S.C. v. Brazil (CRPD/C/12/D/10/2013), para. 6.3. X v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 7.6. H.M. v. Sweden (CRPD/C/7/D/3/2011), para. 7.3; and Lockrey v. Australia (CRPD/C/15/D/13/2013), para. 7.5. See the guidelines on art. 14 of the Convention, “The right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities”, September 2015. 9