CRPD/C/22/D/24/2014 Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information that it has received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73 (1) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 8.2 As regards the author’s complaint under article 5 of the Convention, the Committee notes her argument that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her disability, because the violence that she has suffered constitutes a generalized practice in the State party affecting only people with albinism. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that she has been a victim of disability-based discrimination owing to impunity for the violent acts that she has suffered, the effects of which remain to date. In that connection, the author submits that impunity characterizes most cases of violence perpetrated against persons with albinism, as the State party’s authorities consider that such violence is linked to witchcraft, which is a generally accepted cultural practice and about which prejudice still prevails in society. The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that its authorities have undertaken and continue to undertake initiatives to ensure that persons with albinism are not discriminated against and are treated equally, such as new laws, purposeful policies and initiatives addressing the situation of persons with disabilities, including persons with albinism. Lastly, the Committee notes the author’s claim that the State party’s authorities have not taken the necessary measures to ensure an effective, complete and impartial investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of her attack, and that no preventive or protective measures have been implemented to prevent violence against persons with albinism and ensure their integration into society. 8.3 The Committee recalls that States parties, under article 5 (1) of the Convention, recognize that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law, and, under article 5 (3), are required to take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided, in order to promote equality and eliminate discrimination. The Committee considers that discrimination can result from the discriminatory effect of a rule or measure that is neutral at face value or without intent to discriminate, but that disproportionately affects persons with disabilities.33 In the present case, the Committee notes that the author was a victim of a violent crime corresponding to the characteristics of a practice that affects persons with albinism exclusively: on 17 October 2008, she was attacked by three men while she was sleeping; they hacked off one of her arms and maimed the other, and took her arm away. Since then, the author’s access to justice has been significantly limited in that no investigative action seems to have been taken by the competent authorities after the withdrawal of the prosecution of two of the accused persons and the acquittal of the third, and the perpetrators remain in total impunity more than 11 years after her attack. 8.4 The Committee considers that the State party cannot avoid its responsibilities under the Convention for the mere fact that some of its judicial authorities have already dealt or are still dealing with the matter, while it is clear that the remedies pending in the State party have been unduly prolonged and would appear to be ineffective. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the author has not been provided with any support from State party’s authorities to enable her to live independently again after the loss of her arms and that, generally speaking, the State party has not adopted adequate and effective measures to prevent this form of violence against persons with albinism and to protect them therefrom. 34 In spite of the observations of the State party on the matter, the Committee considers that the author has been a victim of a form of violence that exclusively targets persons with albinism. It further considers that the State party’s failure to prevent and punish such acts has resulted in the author, and other persons with albinism, having been put in a situation of particular vulnerability and prevented from living in society on an equal basis with others. The Committee therefore concludes that the author has been a victim of direct discrimination based on her disability, in violation of article 5 of the Convention. 33 34 12 S.C. v. Brazil, para. 6.4. X v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 8.4.