CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 8.3 The Committee recalls that under article 5 (1) and (2) of the Convention, States parties must ensure that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law, and must take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to promote equality and eliminate discrimination. The Committee also recalls that discrimination can result from the discriminatory effect of a rule or measure that is not intended to discriminate, but that disproportionately affects persons with disabilities. 44 In the present case, the Committee notes that the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act is intended to address the situation of persons with psychosocial and intellectual impairments who are found unfit to stand trial on the basis of mental impairment. The issue before the Committee is therefore to assess whether the differential treatment provided under the Act is reasonable or whether it results in discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities. 8.4 The Committee notes that under the Act, once the person is found unfit to plead, he or she can be maintained in custody for an unlimited period of time. He or she will be presumed to remain not mentally fit to stand trial until the contrary is found. In the meantime, the person has no possibility to exercise his or her legal capacity before the courts. In the present case, the author was charged in 2001 with sexual offences that were never proven. In March 2003, he was declared unfit to plead. A custody order was made and the author was detained at Greenough Regional Prison until 10 January 2012, when he was placed in an accommodation support service. The Committee notes that throughout the author’s detention in prison, the whole judicial procedure focused on his mental capacity to stand trial without giving him any possibility to plead not guilty and to test the evidence against him. The Committee also notes that the State party did not provide the author with the support or accommodation he required to exercise his legal capacity, and did not analyse which measures could be adopted to do so. As a result of the application of the Act, the author’s right to a fair trial was instead fully suspended, depriving him of the protection and equal benefit of the law. The Committee therefore considers that the Act resulted in discriminatory treatment of the author’s case, in violation of article 5 (1) and (2) of the Convention. 8.5 As regards the author���s allegations under articles 12 (2) and (3) and 13 (1) of the Convention, the Committee notes the author’s submission that the decision that he was unfit to plead deprived him of the possibility to exercise his legal capacity to plead not guilty and to test the evidence against him, thereby amounting to a violation of article 12 (2) and (3) of the Convention. The Committee recalls that under article 12 (2), States parties have the obligation to recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life. Under article 12 (3), States parties have the obligation to provide access to the support that persons with disabilities may require to exercise their legal capacity. The Committee also recalls that under article 13 (1), States parties must ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations. 8.6 In the present case, the decision that the author was unfit to plead because of his intellectual and mental disability resulted in a denial of his right to exercise his legal capacity to plead not guilty and to test the evidence against him. Furthermore, no adequate form of support was provided by the State party’s authorities to enable him to stand trial and plead not guilty, despite his clear intention to do so. He therefore never had the opportunity to have the criminal charges against him determined and his status as an alleged sexual offender potentially cleared. The Committee considers that while States parties have a certain margin of appreciation to determine the procedural arrangements to 44 See communication No. 10/2013, S.C. v. Brazil, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 October 2014, para. 6.4. 15