CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 Appendix III [Original: Spanish] Individual opinion of Committee member Víctor Manuel RodríguezRescia (partly dissenting) 1. This opinion concurs with the Committee’s Views on communication No. 2091/2011 in finding a violation of the rights set forth in article 7 of the Covenant. 2. However, as a result of studying the situation of the author as a whole — his mental disability and the effects of his deportation to Jamaica without the State party’s having analysed this case according to the principle of reasonable accommodation set forth in article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — I believe that the Committee should have considered this circumstance in the framework of article 26 of the Covenant, even though the author has not invoked that provision. As I have stated in various separate opinions, I am of the view that the Committee should apply the iura novit curia principle, especially when dealing with situations in which States should promote and defend the rights of vulnerable persons. 3. Similarly, I do not agree with the Committee’s decision in paragraph 10.5 “not to examine separately the author’s claims under articles 17 and 23, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant”. The Committee’s practice of avoiding analysis of articles invoked by authors because it has already identified a violation of some other article strikes me as not in keeping with the comprehensive analysis that should characterize a communication in general, let alone when the author’s vulnerability demands that reasonable accommodation be made. I do not think “economy of procedure” can justify this practice. In this particular case, the author’s Canada-based family, in particular his niece and litigation guardian, shows a marked interest in keeping him from being sent to Jamaica. According to the jurisprudence of the Committee (Dauphin v. Canada and Warsame v. Canada), the definition of family should be sufficiently broad to support the conclusion that his sisters and niece in Canada, to whom he has had close family ties, and from whom he has received support for 31 years, should be deemed family for the purposes of articles 17 and 23. Therefore, the Committee should have found that the author’s expulsion under the terms in which it took place constitutes arbitrary encroachment by the State on the protection of privacy and the family, beyond the limits of reasonableness required in a case such as this one: there were mitigating circumstances to the crimes committed by the author, because his criminal acts were related to his mental illness; what is more, if the State and the family provide community and family support, the author could have a better quality of life with medical and psychiatric treatment that takes due account of all his human rights, with a focus on affirmative action on account of his disability. 20