CRPD/C/22/D/24/2014 persons with disabilities include 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 the description of albinism by the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism (A/HRC/34/59, paras. 15–16), according to which 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. Within this type are subtypes that may reflect varying degrees of melanin deficiency in an individual. 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. The Committee notes that a human rights-based model of disability requires the diversity of persons with disabilities (Convention, preamble, para. (i)) and the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers (ibid., para. (e)) be taken into account. 23 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 clarify that albinism falls within the definition of disability as enshrined in article 1 of the Convention.24 7.4 As regards the State party’s submission that the communication should be found inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Committee notes the arguments of the State party that (a) the author did not file a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, and (b) the author did not initiate civil proceedings to request compensation for damages and harm. In that regard, the Committee notes the author’s submission that civil action and private prosecution do not constitute effective remedies in her case.25 The Committee also notes that the author submitted a complaint to the police on the day that she was attacked, namely, 17 October 2008; that the prosecution against two of the accused was withdrawn as the available evidence did not meet the required standard to obtain a conviction, and a third accused person was acquitted because the requirements of identification had not been met; and that, since then, the author has never been informed of any new additional steps taken by the authorities to investigate the case and bring the culprits to justice. In this context, the Committee recalls that the effectiveness of a remedy depends on the nature and seriousness of the alleged violation. 26 The Committee further recalls that, under the State party’s criminal procedure, the magistrate inquiring into or trying any case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person, including the victim.27 However, in cases of violations of such gravity as those that the author alleges, the primary responsibility to prosecute lies in the hands of the authorities of the State party, 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 S.C. v. Brazil (CRPD/C/12/D/10/2013), para. 6.3. X v. United Republic of Tanzania (CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014), para. 7.6. Ibid., para. 7.3. Villafañe Chaparro et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/60/D/612/1995), para. 5.2. United Republic of Tanzania, Criminal Procedure Act, sect. 99 (1): “Any magistrate inquiring into or trying any case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person, but no person other than a public prosecutor or other officer generally or specially authorized by the President in this behalf shall be entitled to conduct the prosecution without such permission.” Ibid., sect. 90, which states that the Director of Public Prosecutions has the duty: “(a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court (other than a court martial) in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by that person; (b) to take over and continue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted or undertaken by any other person or authority; and (c) to discontinue any criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person.” Article 59B (2) of the Constitution (1977) states: “The Director of Public Prosecutions shall have powers to institute, prosecute and supervise all criminal prosecutions in the country.” See also the National Prosecutions Service Act.