OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT STANDARDS In the case of Noble v. Australia, the UNCRPD Committee found that the decision that author was unfit to stand trial because of his intellectual and mental disability, resulting in a denial of his right to exercise his legal capacity to plead not guilty and to test the evidence against him. Furthermore, no adequate form of support was provided by the State party’s authorities to enable him to stand trial and plead not guilty despite his clear intention to do so. He therefore never had the opportunity to have the criminal charges against him determined and his status as an alleged sexual offender potentially cleared. In view thereof, the Committee considers that the situation under review amounts to a violation of the author’s rights under Art 12 (2) and (3) and 13 (1) of the Convention.49 Similar conclusions were reached in two additional cases against Australia decided in 2019, Manuway (Kerry) Doolan and Christopher Leo.50 In response to these decisions, the Australian Government issued specific replies, which exemplify the discontent from the part of State Parties with some of the interpretations adopted by the UNCRPD Committee. With regard to procedural accommodations, Australia pointed out that a declaration not to stand trial constituted a legitimate differential treatment with the aim to preserve the fair trial rights of the person concerned, thus constituting a form of reasonable accommodation. The Australian Government further rejected some of the UNCRPD Committee’s interpretations, highlighting some points that have also been critically voiced by other States. These include the need for clarity on the UNCRPD Committee’s recommendations, inconsistencies between standards established by different human rights bodies and the fact that the Committee’s interpretation did not reflect the States Parties views of Art 14. CRPD Committee, CRPD/C/22/D/32/2015, Arturo Medina Vela v. Mexico 6 September 2019 Relevant topic: criminal liability and lack thereof based on intellectual and/or psychosocial disability; ability to exercise legal capacity; Decision: Violation of Arts 5, 9, 12, 13 and 14 in conjunction with Art 4 UNCRPD 26 The UNCRPD Committee also decided a case against Mexico concerning a person who was declared not criminally responsiblecd.51 According to the Committee, the State Party had failed to fulfil its obligations under the UNCRPD in different respects and recommended to make all necessary amendments to the criminal laws with regard to the “exempt from liability” concept and the special procedure for persons exempt from criminal liability, with a view to bringing them in line with the principles of the Convention and ensuring respect for due process in cases involving persons with disabilities. This should be done in close consultation with persons with disabilities and the organisations that represent them. Moreover, it should be ensured that persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities are provided with appropriate support and reasonable accommodations to enable them to exercise their legal capacity before the courts. The Committee found violations of Art 13 in conjunction with Art 4 of the UNCRPD, pointing out that the person concerned was excluded from the criminal proceedings. Throughout the criminal proceedings, the author was consistently denied the chance to participate, testify, challenge evidence, receive notifications and intervene in various stages, with the judge rejecting attempts to do so. The special procedure used did not ensure equal access to justice, even when addressing notification failures, as it still relied on the author's legal representative rather than allowing his active participation. In May 2023, Mexico amended its supported decision-making laws. However, no additional reforms have been implemented. Persons with disabilities continue to face problems in reporting crimes, appointing a lawyer of their choosing, being heard during hearings, standing trial, appealing a decision and asking or offering reparation for a crime. The UNCRPD Committee would require that where accused persons have difficulty understanding trial processes, they should be provided with comprehensive and meaningful support options that could allow them to understand and participate in the trial process. If this were not sufficient for accused persons to participate in the trial, then it seems that