A/HRC/4/29 page 15 V. MONITORING THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 42. At the international level, the various treaty bodies, such as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the future Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, together with the Special Rapporteur on the right to education and the Special Rapporteur on disability, have a combined role to play in monitoring the right to inclusive education of persons with disabilities. At the national level, this role falls to the courts, to national human rights institutions, to ombudsmen, to administrative tribunals and to government and independent experts and academics. Monitoring should be “across the board” and, while access to quality free and compulsory primary education is a paramount consideration, it is important to bear in mind that the right to education applies to the broad and entire spectrum of lifelong learning. 43. Of particular relevance is the role of courts and quasi-judicial tribunals in providing remedies for breaches of the right to education. Preliminary research has identified relevant cases in numerous jurisdictions, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Ireland, Israel and the United States of America.24 It should be noted here however that, while judicial notice and enforcement of the right to education of persons with disabilities is important, such decisions have not necessarily met the standards required by international human rights norms, and now specifically detailed in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In making this point, the need for legal reform and judicial training is underscored.25 Significantly, the Optional Protocol to the Disability Convention acknowledges the justiciability of all rights, including the right to education of persons with disabilities. 24 Purvis v. New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62; Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education [1997] 1 SCR 241 at 272-273 [67]; Olmstead v. L.C. (98-536) 527 U.S. 581 (1999) 138 F.3d 893; Yated - Non-Profit Organization for Parents of Children with Down Syndrome v. the Ministry of Education, HCJ 2599/00, Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice; Mater J. Rajkumar Minor rep. by his father and natural guardian Mr. D. Joseph v. the Secretary, Educational Department, Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, the Director of Medical Education, Directorate of Medical Education and the Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education (available at: http://www.ncpedp.org/org/policy/judged02.htm). Constituional Court of Columbia: No. T-429/92, T-036/93, T-298/94, T-329/97, T-513/99, C-559/01, T-339/05; Cámara de lo Contencioso Administrativo de Tucumán, Argentina: No. 62/04; United States Supreme Court: No. 86-728, 80-1002; Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica: No. 14904-06, 9087-06, 2901-06. 25 See Purvis, ibid: “Where the majority narrowly constructed disability so that the behavioural manifestations of a child’s disability were excluded from the definition of ‘disability’ - thus the school’s decision to expel the child from school was held not to constitute unlawful discrimination.”