CRPD/C/17/D/27/2015 3.2 The author further claims that since 2007 she has been deprived of a life and of effective participation and inclusion in society due to her post-surgical illness, in breach of her rights under article 10 of the Convention. 3.3 The author also claims that her rights under article 12 of the Convention have been violated as the court system failed to acknowledge the serious concerns that she had raised in relation to her clinical negligence claim before the County Court in 2013. She claims that it was impossible for her to provide expert evidence in support of her claims before the Court as she had not received a definitive diagnosis of her medical condition. She further argues that the medico-legal reports prepared for the hearing before the Court were not based on medical facts. In relation to her request for judicial review before the Cardiff High Court, the author also claims that the High Court failed to ensure that her right to exercise legal capacity was safeguarded. She claims that the High Court failed to recognize that she was a disabled person who had acquired secondary disabilities that developed into multiple rare disorders and that the treatment she had received in Germany in 2012 was the only effective treatment available. The author further claims that the General Medical Council is not an independent and impartial authority and that it does not fulfil its statutory duty of ensuring that proper standards of medical practice, knowledge and skills are maintained. 3.4 The author submits that her rights under article 15 of the Convention have been violated, as she claims that she has been “continuously punished” for an act of medical negligence. She states that the intensity and duration of the physical pain that she has suffered following a massive loss of cerebrospinal fluid and the development of a pseudomeningocele has subjected her to ill-treatment and torture in the health-care setting. She alleges that such acts have been defended by the State party authorities and amount to cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment, which has caused an unnecessary deterioration of her health and intensified her physical pain and suffering. 3.5 The author also claims that her rights under article 17 of the Convention have been infringed as the State party authorities were informed about the severity of her post-surgical suffering and did not take all reasonable steps necessary to protect her physical and mental integrity. 3.6 The author also claims a violation of her rights under article 19 of the Convention, alleging that she has been deprived of the right to live independently and in society as her disability has had a serious impact on her quality of life. 3.7 The author further claims a violation of her rights under article 23 of the Convention, noting that her mother has had to give up her profession as a qualified teacher in order to care for the author full-time. She notes that her family’s finances have been exhausted on financing private consultations for her in the State party and abroad and that they now have no further funds to support the medical treatment that she still urgently needs. 3.8 The author claims a violation of her rights under article 24 of the Convention, as she had to give up her post-graduate studies at the University of Oxford due to the illness she has suffered as a consequence of the surgery in 2007 and as she has been unable to resume her studies owing to her disability. 3.9 The author also claims that her right to health care under article 25 of the Convention has been violated, as she has not been able to access the specialist health services needed for early identification and intervention of her post-surgical illness. She notes that this has led to the onset of serious medical conditions and rare neurological disorders. She claims that her health has deteriorated since 2007 and that no ongoing management plan and specialist referral has been offered by the State party. She claims that the neuroscientific community in the State party has failed to keep up to date with breakthroughs in global research and has also failed to integrate international services in treatment in order to ensure a health-care service of a high standard and quality. 3.10 The author finally claims a violation of her rights under article 26, as she has not obtained a definitive diagnosis in the State party and therefore is unable to access rehabilitation, and under articles 27 and 30, as her deteriorating health has prevented her from obtaining employment and from enjoying cultural life. 6