CRPD/C/17/D/27/2015 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 11 May 2015, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility of the communication. It considers that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol, for being manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated, and under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.2 The State party does not contest that the author suffers from a disability within the meaning of the Convention. However, the State party notes that the author’s communication revolves around claims that she has experienced negligence or inadequate medical treatment in the United Kingdom and undue delay in receiving treatment, and that she has been denied funding for further treatment abroad. The State party argues that at the heart of the communication are disagreements between the author and medical professionals and the relevant authorities involved as to whether the author’s symptoms have been properly diagnosed and appropriate tests or treatment provided. The State party further argues that the author has not properly engaged the articles cited and has not provided any evidence in her submission before the Committee indicating that she has been treated in any way differently because of her disability or that her access to medical treatment or to funding for medical treatment or to legal remedies has been denied or restricted because of her disability. The State party therefore considers that the substance of the communication does not engage the rights protected by the Convention and that it is therefore manifestly ill-founded. 4.3 The State party argues that it is evident from the communication that the author’s condition is difficult to diagnose and treat and notes that she has seen many specialists and that there has been considerable disagreement and uncertainty among them as to the nature of the author’s condition. The State party further argues that it is clear from the author’s communication that she has received extensive treatment under the National Health Service and that there is no evidence that she has been denied access to health care, but rather that she is dissatisfied with the nature and the extent of the treatment offered. The State party further argues that the author has not provided any evidence to indicate that she has suffered any form of disability-based discrimination in terms of her access to medical treatment. The State party argues that if the National Health Service has been unable to give a definite diagnosis or find a treatment for the author to her satisfaction, this is not the same thing as a failure to accommodate or recognize her disability or to provide health care in that regard on an equal basis with others. The State party further notes that the author has not claimed that she is unable to continue to avail herself of the National Health Service services, or apply for funding by way of an individual patient funding request, but rather has chosen not to do so. 4.4 The State party further argues that the communication relates to the assessment of facts and evidence and that the Committee lacks the competence to determine whether the tests, diagnoses and treatments given to the author were appropriate or to determine what kind of treatment might be appropriate, especially as the communication concerns a condition requiring specialist medical consideration. 4.5 The State party also notes that the author is requesting it to provide funding for a global consultant of her choice. The State party refers to the European Court of Human Rights decision in Sentges v. the Netherlands2 and argues that regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole. The State party submits that in this context due regard must be taken to the allocation of limited State resources. 4.6 The State party further submits that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. It notes that the author is seeking funding for specific treatment abroad after having consulted a specialist in the United States in 2014. The State party argues that it does not appear that the author has taken any steps to assess whether the treatment she is seeking is available in the United Kingdom on the National Health Service or, if it is not, sought funding to access it abroad. The State party notes that individual patient funding 2 Application No. 27677/02, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 8 July 2003. 7