CRPD/C/23/D/41/2017 insofar as Rubén was admitted in the 2017/18 school year to grade 1 of basic vocational training in the delivery of administrative services at the publicly subsidized private educational centre “Down León Amidown Amigos del Síndrome de Down”. However, the Committee also notes that the authors do not consider their request to have been met, as the centre is not a mainstream educational establishment and the training that Rubén is undertaking is not inclusive in approach but is tailored exclusively to students with special educational support needs. Moreover, the Committee notes the authors’ allegations that the State party violated their rights under the Convention by virtue of the fact that: (a) the administrative decision to enrol Rubén in the Nuestra Señora del Sagrado Corazón special education centre – a decision which was upheld by the State party’s courts – violated his right to an inclusive education; (b) the accusation of neglect made by the León provincial prosecution service against Rubén’s parents on the ground that they had refused to take him to a special education centre violated Rubén’s right to family life; (c) the alleged acts of discrimination and abuse suffered by Rubén have not been properly investigated by the State party’s authorities; (d) the State party has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that Rubén enjoys all his rights on an equal basis with other children; and (e) the State party has not yet adopted a legislative framework or an effective policy that ensures the full realization of Rubén’s human rights, despite the fact that the Convention entered into force for the State party on 3 May 2008. In view of the above and given that the State party has not commented on any of the above allegations, the Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims for the purposes of admissibility. 7.5 The Committee also takes note of the authors’ allegations that the State party violated Rubén’s rights under article 13 of the Convention, since none of the rulings, decisions or decrees issued by the authorities of the State party refers to the Convention, whereas the authors cited it frequently throughout the domestic proceedings. However, the Committee considers that these allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, since the authors do not provide any information regarding a lack of training programmes for persons working in the administration of justice in the State party. It therefore declares them inadmissible in accordance with article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 Consequently, and in the absence of any other obstacles with regard to admissibility, the Committee finds the communication admissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol as regards the authors’ claims of the violation of articles 24, 23, 7, 15 and 17 of the Convention, read alone and in conjunction with article 4, and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information that it has received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73 (1) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 8.2 With regard to the allegations of a violation of article 24, the Committee notes that, according to the authors, the administrative decision to enrol Rubén in the Nuestra Señora del Sagrado Corazón special education centre – a decision upheld by the State party’s courts – violated his right to an inclusive education. The Committee notes the authors’ allegations that this decision was taken on the basis of two reports drawn up by the guidance team in close cooperation with and at the behest of the teachers at the mainstream school that Rubén attended, who allegedly subjected him to discrimination and abuse. The Committee also notes that the State party has provided no response to these allegations. The Committee further notes that, as pointed out by the authors, from the information available in the communication it does not appear that the State party’s authorities have carried out a reasonable assessment or an in-depth, detailed study of Rubén’s educational needs and the reasonable accommodations that he would have needed in order to be able to continue attending a mainstream school. In this regard, the Committee notes that Administrative Court No. 1 of León states, in its ruling, that “only with individual attention and the support of specialist teachers who have been working with [Rubén] for a long time can an acceptable response be provided to the learning needs”, and that, although the administration had until that time supported Rubén’s inclusion in a mainstream school, a point had been reached in his educational and behavioural development at which such inclusion could no longer be ensured with the resources available to the administration, GE.20-12764 9