CRPD/C/23/D/41/2017 “which are what they are”. The Committee also notes that: Rubén did not have a special education assistant at the beginning of the 2010/11 school year, since the teacher had decided that an assistant was not needed; the assistant was only assigned later, at the request of Rubén’s parents; and the assistant has stated that, following her assignment, the teacher “completely ignored and gave up teaching Rubén”. 8.3 In addition, the Committee notes that the decisions issued by the judicial authorities of the State party do not give any weight to the report drawn up by the clinical psychologist G.C. indicating that Rubén’s difficulties in adjusting to schooling in the mainstream establishment were due to a lack of educational support and the discriminatory, hostile environment that he experienced there. The Committee notes that the information provided does not show that all reasonable accommodation measures possible were taken to enable the author to study in a mainstream educational establishment. 8.4 The Committee recalls that “in accordance with article 24 (1), States parties must ensure the realization of the right of persons with disabilities to education through an inclusive education system at all levels, including preschool, primary, secondary and tertiary education, vocational training and lifelong learning, extracurricular and social activities, and for all students, including persons with disabilities, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others”.18 The Committee also recalls that “inclusion involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and the environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences”. 19 The Committee further recalls that “the right to nondiscrimination includes the right not to be segregated and to be provided with reasonable accommodation and must be understood in the context of the duty to provide accessible learning environments and reasonable accommodation”.20 8.5 The Committee recalls the context in which these events occurred. It recalls that in its inquiry concerning Spain under article 6 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, it concluded that: (a) in the State party “a structural pattern of discriminatory exclusion and educational segregation on grounds of disability has been perpetuated, by means of a medical model, which disproportionately and particularly affects persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and persons with multiple disabilities”; 21 (b) “given the number, continuing nature and diversity of violations found and the fact that they are interlinked on a permanent and continuous basis, and taking into account that such violations result in large part from the system established by legislation, policies and institutional practices […] the findings of the present inquiry are reliable and indicate grave or systematic violations within the meaning of article 6 of the Optional Protocol and rule 83 of the Committee’s rules of procedure”;22 and (c) “in accordance with its jurisprudence and its general comment No. 4, the Committee recalls that an inclusive system based on the right to non-discrimination and equal opportunities requires the abolition of the separate education system for students with disabilities”.23 8.6 The Committee also recalls its expression of concern, in its most recent concluding observations concerning the State party, about the “limited progress made by the State party with regard to inclusive education, including the lack of a clear policy and action plan for the promotion of inclusive education. The Committee is particularly concerned that the State party has maintained all regulatory provisions on special education and a medical impairment-based approach. The Committee is concerned that a high number of children with disabilities, including autism, intellectual or psychosocial and multiple disabilities, are still receiving segregated special education.”24 8.7 With regard to the authors’ claim that Rubén is the victim of a violation of article 24 read in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention, since the Convention entered into 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 10 General comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, para. 8. Ibid., para. 11. Ibid., para. 13. CRPD/C/ESP/IR/1, para. 74. Ibid., para. 79. Ibid., para. 81. CRPD/C/ESP/CO/2-3, para. 45. GE.20-12764