CCPR/C/127/D/2920/2016 January 2012, that decision was quashed by the Supreme Court and, on 26 July 2012, the Balkhash city court, during a new hearing of the author’s case, while it found the author unfit to stand trial based on the new psychiatric expert examination, had also decided against compulsory medical measures. 7.9 The Committee observes the author’s submissions that, on 12 December 2011, when she went to the Balkhash psychiatric facility to speak with them, she was apprehended and forcefully hospitalized based on the conclusion of the medical commission that she constituted a threat to others. She was subsequently kept in the clinic for two weeks without any court decision in this regard. 7.10 The Committee also notes the State party’s response that the author’s forced hospitalization and treatment during the period 12 December 2011 to 5 January 2012 34 was based on the court’s decision of 6 September 2011 on forced outpatient compulsory treatment and the results of the medical commission’s assessment of the author’s state of mental health. When the author’s state improved, she was released from the psychiatric facility. 7.11 The Committee further notes the author’s submissions that, on 9 August 2013, she was violently taken from her home and forcefully hospitalized. The hospitalization was later approved by the Balkhash city court on 20 August 2013. The author appealed that decision, but to no avail. 7.12 The Committee notes the State party’s observation that, while the author was under an order for “dynamic monitoring”, she did not visit her doctor or take the prescribed treatment. Suspecting that the state of the author had deteriorated, the author was taken by force for a medical examination during which it was concluded that she needed to be hospitalized. All the requirements of the Health-Care Code were allegedly met and the prosecutor was informed accordingly. On 20 August 2013, the court satisfied the request of the prosecutor to subject the author to a forced hospitalization. This decision was upheld on appeal and cassation. Another psychiatric expert examination, of 1 November 2013, also confirmed the author’s diagnosis. On 5 November 2013,35 the author was discharged from the psychiatric facility. 7.13 The Committee notes that the author challenges the validity of her medical diagnosis, while the State party upholds its correctness. The Committee observes, however, that the State party has failed to present sufficient evidence in the present case to show that all the involuntary hospitalizations of the author were necessary for the purpose of protecting her from serious harm or preventing injury to others. It also observes that, even if the State party’s diagnosis of the author were accepted, the existence of an intellectual and psychosocial disability may not in itself justify a deprivation of liberty. Rather, any deprivation of liberty in States parties that resort to involuntary hospitalization must be necessary and proportionate, for the purpose of protecting the individual in question from serious harm or preventing injury to others. 36 7.14 In the light of the above, the Committee notes that the information and evidence submitted by the parties does not attest that the author constituted a threat to herself or to others. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the author was admitted to a psychiatric hospital several times even though she did not pose any danger whatsoever to herself or others and that, although this fact was established by the Balkhash court decision of 26 July 2012, the author was involuntarily hospitalized once again. The Committee notes that even though the right to liberty is not absolute, 37 detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it can be justified only where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest, which might require that the person concerned be detained.38 For these reasons, the Committee finds that the authors’ committal to the psychiatric hospital from 12 January to 22 34 35 36 37 38 12 According to the author, she was released on 29 December 2011. According to the author, she was released on 1 November 2013. See T.V. and A.G. v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/116/D/2044/2011), para. 7.7; Fijalkowska v. Poland, para. 8.3; and Fardon v. Australia (CCPR/C/98/D/1629/2007), para. 7.3. See also CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, para. 19; and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 14 (1) (b). See general comment No. 35, para. 10. See T.V. and A.G. v. Uzbekistan, para. 7.8.