CRPD/C/20/D/23/2014 3.6 He also argues that the failure by the State party to take the necessary steps to bring the perpetrators of the attacks he suffered in 2010 and 2011 to justice has violated his right to access to justice and protection. He therefore considers that the State party has violated his rights under article 13 of the Convention. 3.7 Furthermore, the author considers that the State party has failed to protect him from violence and torture. Even if they know of the persecution suffered by persons with albinism in the United Republic of Tanzania, the State party’s authorities have not taken appropriate measures to curtail the targeted physical, emotional and mental abuses that they suffer. This situation persists even though the Human Rights Council 10 urged States parties in 2013 to take all measures necessary to ensure the effective protection of persons with albinism and their family members. The author considers the attacks he suffered to be a direct consequence of the lack of intervention by the State party’s authorities on the issue, which, together with their failure to investigate the attacks he suffered, amount to a violation of articles 15 and 16 of the Convention. 3.8 He also alleges that, as a result, his physical and mental integrity have not been respected, and that the authorities of the State party have therefore violated their obligations under article 17 of the Convention. 3.9 As regards the fact that he was forced to stop attending school in order to escape violence and insecurity, the author claims that he did not enjoy his right to education for two years until the Under the Same Sun organization took care of him. Therefore, the author alleges that his rights under article 24 (1) of the Convention have been violated by the State party. 3.10 The author argues that significant efforts have been made to exhaust all available domestic remedies. However, the State party has failed to conduct effective investigations into the attacks he suffered in 2010 and 2011 and which he reported to the police. He recalls that in June 2012 the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to drop the charges against the three suspects for lack of evidence. The author also states that the Criminal Procedure Act11 provides that a victim is unable to initiate a private prosecution before a district court, a magistrates’ court or the High Court. 3.11 The author submits that his complaint has not been submitted to or examined under any other procedure of international investigation. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 23 September 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the present communication, requesting that the admissibility and the merits be considered separately. The State party recalls the main facts of the complaint and acknowledges that the author was attacked on 14 October 2011 in Geita Region because of his skin pigmentation. 4.2 The State party submits that the communication should be held inadmissible for non-exhaustion of all available domestic remedies, in compliance with article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention. The State party challenges the author’s allegation that it failed to conduct effective investigations and submits that an investigation was instituted by the police right after the attack, namely on 14 October 2011. It recalls that on 15 October 2011, three suspects were arrested and arraigned in Geita Magistrates’ Court for attempted murder in criminal case No. 43/2011. 4.3 However, the State party submits that the accused persons, three members of the author’s family, were not identified by the author as being his attackers. Since there was no other evidence connecting the arrested suspects to the said attack, the prosecution dropped the charges by way of nolle prosequi in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act. 12 In accordance with domestic law, the case can later be reinstated. 10 11 12 4 The author refers to Human Rights Council resolution 23/13. See www.imolin.org/doc/amlid/Tanzania_The%20Criminal%20Procedure%20Act,%201985.pdf. The State party refers to sect. 91 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.