CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 contest this statement and that the information provided does not reflect that he submitted any complaint to the competent national jurisdictions in that regard. The Committee therefore concludes that this part of the author’s communication is inadmissible under article 2 (f) of the Optional Protocol. 7.9 Thirdly, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that part of the author’s allegations should be considered inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegation according to which the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act violates article 5 of the Convention should be considered inadmissible because it relates to the general legal framework and should therefore be addressed by the Committee through a general comment or in its consideration of State parties’ reports. The Committee recalls that an individual complaint may not contest a law or practice in theoretical terms by actio popularis. 43 However, in the present case, the Committee finds that the author has sufficiently substantiated the fact that the Act has had a direct impact on the enjoyment of his rights and therefore considers his claim under article 5 (1) of the Convention admissible. 7.10 Fourthly, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that some of the author’s allegations should be considered inadmissible for lack of substantiation and lack of merits under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim relating to the alleged violations of his rights under article 15 of the Convention are not substantiated. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that while he was in prison, he was at significant risk of harm from other prisoners who subjected him to frequent acts of violence and abuse, that the assaults he faced were serious, and that because of their frequency, they made him more vulnerable and that his disability prevented him from protecting himself. The Committee further notes that, according to the author, these offences amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, and apparently remained unrecorded by the prison authorities. In view thereof and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, the Committee considers that the author sufficiently substantiated his allegations under article 15 for the purpose of admissibility and concludes that they are admissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. 7.11 Accordingly, and in the absence of other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible as far as it concerns the author’s claims under articles 5 (1) and (2), 12 (2) and (3), 13 (1), 14 (1) (b) and 15. The Committee therefore proceeds to the consideration of these allegations on 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 As regards the author’s complaint under article 5 of the Convention, the Committee notes his submission that the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act is discriminatory as it applies only to persons with cognitive impairment, and provides for their indefinite detention without any finding of guilt when they are charged with criminal offences, while persons without cognitive impairments are protected from such treatment through the application of the rules of due process and fair trial. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the Act is not discriminatory, but provides for legitimate differential treatment of certain persons with disabilities, subject to safeguards to ensure that it is proportionate to its aims. 43 14 See, for example, Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1746/2008, Goyet v. France, decision of admissibility adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 6.3.