The authors of the communication, dated 10 June 2020, are E. G. M. and F. J. M., nationals of Spain born on 4 January 1971 and 4 June 1968, respectively. They claim that their son, Y. J. G., a Spanish national born on 27 April 2009, is the victim of violations by the State Party of article 24 of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 3 May 2008. The authors are represented by counsel.
Y. J. G. has been diagnosed with Angelman syndrome. Initially, he attended and received support at a mainstream school, where there was significant progress in his general development. However, in January 2016, he underwent an early psychopedagogical evaluation, during which it was recommended that he be transferred to a special education centre. Despite his parents’ objections, he was enrolled in a special education centre through administrative channels. Since his transfer to the special education centre during the 2016/17 academic year, the learning support services provided to Y. J. G. have been significantly reduced. As a result, his academic progress has stagnated and disruptive behaviours have begun to manifest themselves; the latter have been managed through temporary expulsions from the classroom. His learning has been limited to basic areas such as personal autonomy, knowledge of the environment and communication, and he has not had access to fundamental subjects such as mathematics, language or science. Despite multiple requests, the centre has refused to provide the parents with their son’s academic records, which in turn prevents them from proving a lack of progress and a deviation from the general curriculum. In addition, the parents state that they did not receive a copy of the administrative decision regarding their son’s transfer to the special needs centre, making it impossible for them to file appeals through administrative or judicial channels.
The authors claim that their son’s enrolment in the Francisco del Pozo public special education school violated article 24 of the Convention because it impeded his right to a quality inclusive education. They state that, despite their objections, the education authorities denied them the possibility of enrolling him in a mainstream school, forcing them to appeal to the courts and leaving the child without schooling during lengthy legal proceedings. The authors argue that this act also violates current Spanish law and deprives the minor of access to educational opportunities that facilitate social inclusion, access to employment and tertiary education, in contravention of article 24 (5) of the Convention.
On 25 October 2021, in accordance with rule 56 of its rules of procedure, the Committee’s Working Group on Communications registered the communication. In addition, under rule 70 of the same rules of procedure, the State Party was requested to submit its observations and relevant information regarding both the admissibility and the merits of the case.
On 5 July 2022, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the case, and maintained that the communication should be declared inadmissible. On 30 October 2023, the Committee’s secretariat transmitted to the authors the observations submitted by the State Party on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. On 7 May 2024, the secretariat again requested the authors to submit their comments on those observations, setting a deadline of 7 June 2024. As of the date of this decision, no response has been received from the authors.
At its meeting on 26 August 2025, the Committee, having noted the authors’ failure to respond to the repeated requests for comments on the State Party’s observations on the communication and for confirmation of their interest in continuing the procedure, decided to discontinue consideration of communication No. 92/2021.