CRPD/C/23/D/41/2017 force for the State party on 3 May 2008, but the State party has not yet adopted legislation or policies that ensure Rubén’s right to inclusive education, the Committee recalls that: “For article 4 (1) (b) of the Convention to be implemented, States parties should take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities and that are in violation of article 24. Where necessary, discriminatory laws, regulations, customs and practices should be repealed or amended in a systematic and time-bound manner.”25 8.8 For the above reasons, the Committee considers that the administrative decision to enrol Rubén in a special education centre without taking into account the opinion of his parents, without effectively exploring the possibility of making reasonable accommodations that could have allowed him to remain in the mainstream education system, without giving any weight to the reports of the clinical psychologist and the special education assistant, and without taking into account the authors’ allegations regarding acts of discrimination and abuse suffered by Rubén in the mainstream school, constitutes a violation of his rights under article 24 of the Convention read alone and in conjunction with article 4. 8.9 With regard to the allegations related to article 23 read in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention, the Committee notes the authors’ claim that the State party violated their right to family life by accusing the parents of neglect on the ground that they had refused to take their child to the Nuestra Señora del Sagrado Corazón special education centre. The Committee notes the authors’ claim that if the accusation had been successful, it could have caused the parents to lose custody of their child. The Committee also notes that, according to the information available in the communication, on 23 May 2014, the Court ordered Rubén’s parents to provide a surety of €2,400 each pending the outcome of the trial. This was ordered as a precautionary measure, on pain of the seizure of their assets. The Committee notes that this precautionary measure was only lifted almost a year later, on 20 April 2015, when the parents were acquitted. The Committee considers that this surety placed an excessive financial burden on Rubén’s parents, which compounded the tensions arising from their struggle for the recognition of their child’s rights to inclusive education, and that this undoubtedly had a negative impact on their personal and family well-being. 8.10 In this regard, the Committee recalls that in its inquiry concerning Spain under article 6 of the Optional Protocol it urged the State party to “ensure that the parents of students with disabilities cannot be prosecuted for neglect if they demand that their children’s right to inclusive education on an equal footing be respected”.26 In the light of the arguments set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Committee finds that the State party failed to discharge its obligations under article 23 of the Convention read alone and in conjunction with article 4. 8.11 The Committee also notes the authors’ allegations that during the 2009/10 and 2010/11 school years, Rubén was subjected to discrimination and abuse in the Antonio González de Lama de León mainstream public school, which endangered his physical integrity and undermined his dignity, in violation of his rights under article 15 read in conjunction with article 17 of the Convention. In particular, the Committee notes that: (a) according to witness statements made before Administrative Court No. 1 of León, the mothers of two of Rubén’s classmates testified that his teacher grabbed him by the neck and threatened to throw him out of the window and also threatened to hit him with a chair; and (b) the authors claim that Rubén was physically assaulted by a teacher, who slapped him several times. 8.12 The Committee recalls that under article 15 of the Convention no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the State party must take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee recalls that under article 17 of the Convention every person with disabilities has a right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity on an equal basis with others. In this regard, the Committee notes that the ruling of the High Court of Justice of Castile and León recognized that “in fact, the situation in the school in recent years was not appropriate to [Rubén’s] needs, the attitude 25 26 GE.20-12764 General comment No. 4, para. 19. CRPD/C/ESP/IR/1, para. 84 (e). 11