Abstract:
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and its Optional Protocol obliges
member states to recognise the human rights of persons with disabilities in all spheres of society, including the
administration of justice. This article turns its gaze to the administration of justice as required by the CRPD against
the backdrop of a steady stream of gender and its disability stereotypes that dominated public discourse during the
trial of Oscar Pistorius, the case selected for analysis. In phase 1 of the study an applied thematic analysis was
conducted on media reports on the trial of Oscar Pistorius. The analysis revealed the different ways in which the
prosecutor and the defence used gender and disability stereotypes to build their respective cases on the charges
against Pistorius. In phase 2 of the study, applied thematic analysis was used to explore whether prejudicial
presumptions based on the stereotypes used by counsel found their way into the final judgment. The results of the
study have implications for further research on the administration of justice that involves persons with disabilities.
