The authors of the communication, dated 20 August 2020, are Fundación A.C.C.I.O.N., Fundación Madre Teresa and Liga Pampeana de Ayuda al Diabético (LIPADI). These organizations submitted the communication on behalf of N.V.H. and L.H.F. and H.L.G., who are Argentine nationals, born on 20 January 1976, 2 July 1973 and 16 December 1978, respectively. The authors claim that the State Party has violated the rights of N.V.H. and L.H.F. and H.L.G. to access public transport, as provided for under articles 3 (f) and 9 (1) (a) and (2) (a) of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 2 October 2008. The authors are represented by counsel.
N.V.H. has a motor disability as well as neurological trauma and hearing impairments resulting from a road traffic accident. L.H.F. has limited mobility following the traumatic amputation of a leg and H.L.G. is blind as a result of a workplace accident. The authors note that the alleged victims live in areas of social housing where the streets are unpaved and which are far from the city centre where the health facilities in which they are receiving medical treatment and rehabilitative care are located. They further note that, after issuing an invitation to tender, the municipality of Santa Rosa accepted the bid of a bus company whose vehicles did not meet the established conditions and did not have the accessibility features necessary to provide service for persons with disabilities. In addition to buses, the municipality has introduced six- to eight-seater vans equipped with lifts for wheelchairs, which operate from Monday to Friday on an “on-demand” basis to take persons with disabilities to activities, as determined by the concession holder (rehabilitative care, medical services, school, etc.). In this context, the authors claim that the alleged victims’ right to access public transportation has been violated, leading to complications that have worsened their health and financial situation.
On 13 October 2013, the authors filed an extraordinary amparo appeal before Civil, Commercial, Labour and Mining Court No. 5 of the La Pampa Judicial Authority, seeking a ruling ordering the municipality of Santa Rosa and the holder of the urban transport concession to take measures to ensure the accessibility of public transport for persons with disabilities. The alleged victims were involved as interested third parties and carried out accessibility tests on the buses. On 8 May 2014, the court issued a favourable judgment, ordering the defendants to implement the measures required under article 15 of Act No. 2226 and National Executive Decree No. 914/97 within 30 days of the decision becoming final, subject to a fine of 2,000 Argentine pesos for each day of non-compliance. The fine would begin to accrue as soon as any failure to comply with the order was verified and, if the failure persisted, would be increased by 30% every 30 days counting from the first month of noncompliance. On 12 February 2016, the Court of Appeal for Civil, Commercial, Labour and Mining Matters upheld the lower court’s judgment, which consequently became final.
On 29 August 2019, the authors filed a motion for enforcement of the judgment before Civil, Commercial, Labour and Mining Court No. 5 of the La Pampa Judicial Authority, claiming that the municipality of Santa Rosa and the concession holder had failed to comply with the terms of the court’s judgment. On 7 July 2021, the court issued a favourable ruling, ordering payment of the updated fine and urging the municipality of Santa Rosa to ensure service accessibility. After appeal, this ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal for Civil, Commercial, Labour and Mining Matters on 19 November 2021. However, the authors maintain that, at the time they submitted their communication to the Committee, the defendants had still not complied with the judgment and were thus still violating the alleged victims’ right to access public transportation, as provided for in article 3 (f) and article 9 1 (a) and 2 (a) of the Convention.
On 19 August 2022, the Committee, acting through its working group on communications, registered the communication in accordance with the provisions of rule 56 of its rules of procedure. In addition, in accordance with rule 70 of the rules of procedure, the State Party was asked to submit its observations and relevant information related to both the admissibility and the merits of the case.
On 12 August 2023, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication, requesting the Committee to discontinue its consideration, in accordance with rule 74 of its rules of procedure, on the grounds that the circumstances that gave rise to the communication no longer existed since the substantive issues had been resolved by the domestic authorities, in accordance with the judgment of the High Court of Justice of La Pampa dated 26 August 2022. On 16 October 2023, the authors submitted their comments, stating that they were denied access to the extraordinary appeal filed by the municipality of Santa Rosa, that the State Party had still not complied with the final judgment, and that, consequently, access to public transportation for persons with disabilities was still not effectively guaranteed, as indicated in its observations. Subsequently, on 22 May 2024, the State Party submitted further comments.
On 8 September 2025, the Committee’s secretariat forwarded the observations submitted by the State Party on 22 May 2024 to the authors and gave them until 10 October 2025 to submit any further comments. On 23 January 2026, the Secretariat granted the authors a further extension, giving them until 20 February 2026 to submit their comments. As of the date of this decision, no response has been received from the authors.
At its meeting on 26 March 2026, the Committee, having noted the State Party’s observations regarding the passage of time and the resolution of the substantive issues in domestic proceedings, as well as the authors’ failure to respond to the request for comments on the State Party’s observations on the communication and for confirmation of their interest in continuing the procedure, decided to discontinue the consideration of communication No. 99/2022.