CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 Annex Individual opinion of Committee member Damjan Tatić (partly dissenting) 1. I agree with the Committee that the author’s allegations pertaining to articles 5 (1) and (2), 14 (1) (b) and 15 of the Convention are admissible under the Optional Protocol. I also agree with Committee’s view that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5 (1) and (2), 14 (1) (b) and 15 of the Convention. Furthermore, I agree with the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations to the State party pertaining to its duties in relation to full implementation of these articles. 2. I am less persuaded, however, by the Committee’s treatment of admissibility rationae temporis of allegations pertaining to articles 12 and 13. I am of the view that on 5 November 2010, the District Court of Western Australia did not examine the author’s claims on the merits and all decisions relating to the author’s capacity to plead not guilty occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party. I consider that the decision of the District Court did not in any way reinforce the previous court decisions, taken prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party. Therefore, I am of the view that the author’s allegations pertaining to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention are inadmissible rationae temporis. 19