音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: SKIP NAVI GOTO NAVI

UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Working Group Daily Summary
A service made possible by Landmine Survivors Network

Volume 3, # 3
January 7, 2004

Morning Session

Commenced: 10:20am
Adjourned: 1pm

The Coordinator suggested that the WG text A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.1 on the States Parties general obligations be discussed during the afternoon session, but specified that there was a correction to be made in the second line of Article 4 (1) (a). It should read "give effect to this convention" instead of "give effect to the rights recognized in this Convention." This change is in line with comments make by WG members that given that many of the rights addressed in this convention already exist, the WG is fleshing out existing rights. Regarding yesterday's discussion, the Chair presented to the WG the issue of "legal competence" and some delegations asserted that there could be no situation in which a PWD did not have legal competence. A response on that issue was received from Inclusion International (II).

Sierra Leone raised the issue of intervention and consent. The representative referred to Article 7 (b) and (c), of the EU draft on page 98 of the Compilation as well as the Article 12 (1) and (2) (and alternate) on pages 113-114 of the Compilation. On the issue of intervention and consent, or the inability to give free consent, Sierra Leone preferred the EU draft, which avoids the issue of who is to give consent and the whole issue of intervention. Article 7 (b) of the EU draft provides that States Parties undertake to "prohibit and prevent any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of persons with disabilities, in particular in situations of forced intervention or institutionalization." It does not speak about consent or name any specific institution. Sierra Leone preferred Article 7 (b) and (c) of the EU to Article 12 (1) and (2) (and alternate) of the Bangkok draft.

Responding to Sierra Leone, WNUSP expressed its view that although the EU proposal in Article 7 avoids the issue of consent, it does not offer sufficient protection from forced interventions. In prohibiting any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of PWDs in situations of forced intervention or institutionalization (Article 7 (b) EU draft), the EU accepts that there can be a situation of forced intervention that may not constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Furthermore the EU text does not create standards and limitations for this practice. WNUSP does not accept procedural standards for forced interventions which conflict with autonomy, diversity and the right to be different. Responding to the issue of capacity and incompetence, WNUSP asserted that the issue of needing assistance in asserting ones rights, expressing one's own preferences, should never entail taking away the person's right to make one's own decisions. Article 11 (2) of the Chair's draft has similar language to Article 13 (5) (c) of the Bangkok draft on page 114 of the Compilation, though the Bangkok draft has clearer language and focuses on the right to use assistance. If assistance is provided to people who may not be able to express their choices without it, the person should be able to express their preference to the maximum extent possible and have that preference and choice respected. In relation to forced intervention or forced treatment, WNUSP suggested that the WG consider the proposed supplement to the Standard Rules (SR) does not contain any limiting language on those rights. (Relevant paragraphs of are 27 and 33.)

The Coordinator noted that this fundamental issue was not going to be resolved in this WG, but that the WG may narrow down the approaches. The Coordinator identified three approaches: the EU text contains broad language and does not set down a standard or mechanism for determining when there may be intervention with or without consent; the Bangkok draft stipulates that intervention is possible in certain circumstances; and WNUSP has read broader language that sets out a more prescriptive approach.

Ireland clarified the EU draft regarding institutionalization, stating there has been tendency in the WG to refer to Article 7 (b) and (c) of the EU draft, and to neglect Article 7 (d), which contains the clause "with application of relevant legal safeguards." This clause is intended to cover questions institutionalization.

The Coordinator noted that many delegations wished to elaborate the legal safeguards that might apply, and the conditions in which detention or forced intervention would be permissible. There is nothing in the EU draft that specifically relates to forced intervention. The Coordinator asked Ireland if sub-paragraph (d) of the EU draft, where the deprivation of liberty is mentioned, would cover forced intervention. Ireland answered that consultation would be needed before responding. Sierra Leone noted that the mandate of the WG is to facilitate the negotiation process, although it is not mandated to negotiate.

The Coordinator asserted that it is unlikely that the WG will reach an outcome on intervention and consent. He hoped to identify approaches for the AHC to consider.

Regarding the issue of whether Article 7 (d) would cover forced intervention, Ireland responded negatively, though it expressed readiness to discuss the issue further.

China suggested merging the language of Article 13 (3) of the Chair's text with Article 7 (c) of the EU draft. As for Paras 1 and 2 of Article 13 in the Chair's draft, "the meaning was so complex" that, he asserted, it might lead to new problems.

India appreciated the concerns expressed by the delegates over forced intervention, but noted concerns over situations where forced intervention may be withheld if the PWD cannot give informed consent. India expressed support for the Bangkok declaration on this issue as a way of protecting the right to treatment for people with severe disabilities.

II asserted that Article 7 (b) of the EU draft is too weak. II noted that there is no prohibition of forced intervention and institutionalization if it does not reach the degree of degrading treatment. II stated that there is no reason to institutionalize anyone and there is no reason to accept forced intervention. This stance must be stated clearly in the convention.

Canada asked whether the WG was veering into two different spheres on the issue of substitute decision makers, ie discussing it in the context of medical interventions under Article 12 of the Chair's draft and in the context of the EU draft.

The Coordinator raised the possibility of a separate article on intervention. The coordinator noted 3 stances on this issue: there should be no intervention without consent, and where the person is unable to give consent there would be someone who would take that decision for them; individual preferences should be able to be overridden by state actors if this is in the best interests of the individual or others; intervention should be permitted in accordance with the law but the convention would not stipulate exactly what that means. The WG should suggest language that reflects each of these approaches to submit to the AHC.

WNUSP stipulated that if the convention takes a position that it is appropriate to perform forced interventions on PWD, this will change the convention from a "convention on our rights" to a "convention on ways to permissibly violate our rights." Regarding Art 11 about issues of making one's choices, it is unacceptable to have anything in the convention that will say there are circumstances where it is permissible to take away a person's right to make his/her her own choices. WNUSP preferred a conceptual approach that is based on the principles that the WG has addressed, such as equality, autonomy, the right to be different and nondiscrimination, and apply those principles, without trying to figure how to make exceptions for them. WNUSP stated that it would not accept any language that gives procedural guarantees for forced interventions.

The Coordinator observed a fundamental conflict between the view expressed by the WNUSP and that expressed by state delegations who feel they need to have the ability to intervene where a person is not able to take decisions for themselves. What the WG needs to do is identify these alternative approaches for the AHC to consider.

II noted that people have different ways of communicating, and assumptions should not be made about a person's capacity to take decisions just because they may use an alternative form of communication. II supported the position of the WNUSP.

Ireland clarified that the EU is not advocating forced interventions or forced institutionalization. The EU supports the integration of PWD in the community, and under no circumstances can any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of PWD be permitted.

Thailand reiterated support for colleagues voicing concern over forced intervention. Thailand supported protection against any form of forced intervention. This issue will manifest itself in other areas such as education.

Japan noted that in principle no forced intervention or forced institutionalization should be allowed. However, in reality there are exceptional cases where forced intervention may be necessary, for example if the individual risks harming himself or others. It is important to have strict guidelines to avoid abuse in such cases. The convention should include judicial remedies as outlined in the Chairs's draft in Article 14 (2) (a).

Germany recommended looking at the recommendation of the European Council in 1999, which includes a principle of proportionality: where a measure of protection is necessary it should be proportional to the degree of capacity of the person concerned, and tailored to the individual circumstances and needs of the person concerned.

The Coordinator noted his impression that in the past there was a presumption in favor of intervention. His sense was that the current approach is that you should not intervene unless it is necessary. Therefore, a presumption against intervention in the convention might be a useful development.

Slovenia concurred with the Coordinator, and supported the German concept of the principle of proportionality. Building on comments by Japan, Slovenia also noted that in cases when forced intervention and institutionalization do occur, PWD need to be treated with full human dignity.

Regarding the perceived need for forced intervention and institutionalization voiced by some delegates, WNUSP noted that that it is in fact the legal standard in the United States. Moreover, that standard does not result in any significant protection. It is not enough to say that there is a standard in place, and that this practice should be rare. In addition, it is inconsistent with the spirit and reality of the lives of PWD to assert that it is sometimes permissible to take "an attitude of paternalism." Korea reiterated the need to read out articles when referring to written texts in the interests of persons with visual disabilities.

WFD offered support to the views of WNUSP and II, by asserting that, based on disability, there can be no grounds for forced intervention or institutionalization. For example, they noted that If the person is unconscious, that is not an issue related to disability, per se, as anyone can be unconscious. WFD felt that Article 7 of the EU text is too weak.

Serbia and Montenegro (SM) expressed support for examining EU material in the WG. SM reiterated that there should be strong safeguards if forced intervention is necessary as specified by Japan. SM supported the idea of safeguards for abused persons with disabilities and that they ought to have legal recourse.

Thailand reiterated that Article 13 (5) from the Bangkok draft aims to assist PWD to make decisions under any circumstances They maintained that the mechanism in this paragraph should be included in the convention

DPI asserted that forced intervention and institutionalization is the farthest people or authorities can go in violating the rights of PWD. It is essential that PWD make their own choices.

New Zealand (NZ) cautioned that often when an "open door" policy is allowed, the door swings wide open. NZ stressed the importance of presuming competence and noted that if a practice should not be applied to non-disabled human beings then it should not be applied to PWD.

The Coordinator noted that, given the importance of the issue, the WG needed to look at having a separate article to deal with the issue.

WNUSP noted that PWD should be free from detention based on disability. This is a fundamental right that should not be limited. WNUSP also noted that justifying detention by saying that a person may harm him/herself is paternalistic.
Furthermore, detention in an institution or hospital based on disability engenders the same kind of hardship as prison; it is not something that benefits the person. Justifying detention by arguing that the person is a danger to others is disregarding due process. WNUSP argued that PWD have the same responsibilities as all people. Claiming incompetence should not constitute a defense.

II backed the position of WNUSP and added that people detained in institutions around the world are often still treated as patients and not citizens. Some detainees have shaved heads or live in cages. This can happen in small group homes as well.

Word Federation of the Deaf-Blind noted that often PWD are put in prison because of misunderstood language or placed in institutions because of misdiagnosis. Some are detained in the family without communication systems. Attention to forced intervention is therefore a very important aspect of the convention.

DPI underlined the need to ensure liberty in the areas of legal proceedings and detention. Regarding the right to liberty the WG should also take into account the needs of PWD in terms of immigration, asylum, access to heath and rehabilitation.

Japan asserted that Article 14 (2) (b) of the Chair's draft was too specific Japan also noted that if Article 14 refers to "international standards" in paragraph 5, this should be preceded by "applicable" so as to read "applicable international standards."

Regarding the issue of deprivation of liberty, Ireland drew attention to Article 7(d) of the EU draft proposal and noted that the EU would be open to a discussion on the issue of safeguards.

European Disability Forum (EDF) expressed support for comments by the WNUSP and II on this important issue. The right to liberty is a fundamental right for PWD. This right should imply not only liberty from detention or confinement, but also from protection. This right is limited to different degrees throughout the world. It is not a new right; it is a legal, political and civil right. Speaking about existing rights, EDF noted that it is necessary to tailor those rights in order to provide PWD with the opportunity to fully enjoy those rights.

Sierra Leone recommended removing paragraphs (3) (4) and (5) from Article 14 of the Chair's draft, without amending them, and placing these provisions under Article 11 of the Chair's draft. The Coordinator recognized that this might be a useful placement suggestion.

Canada noted that Article 14 (1) of the Chair's draft, elaborated language on detention and confinement. Canada affirmed that it does not want to stray from the language in Article 9 in the ICCPR, unless there are elucidating comments on why this language has been expanded. Canada concurred with the Coordinator's suggestion to have a separate article for intervention. In addition, they agreed that the concept of proportionality would be useful in this discussion. The representative took issue with the phrase "judicial procedure" in Article 14 (4) of the Chair's draft. In Canada administration implicates tribunals whereas judicial indicates courts. These are separate systems. In relation to Article (5), Canada expressed concerns over the reiteration of the concept of rights. Canada does not want to establish new rights, but rather provide measures to ensure the full implementation of existing rights. Perhaps the term "rights" in Article 14 (5) might actually be measures.

RI clarified what was at stake in the debate. The normal right to loss of liberty is the legal process. In the civil commitment process it is the condition that is at stake and not an act. The civil commitment process turns on a medical determination. He noted that there are differences between the loss of liberty under the criminal process versus the civil commitment process, and in many regards the criminal process offers the most protections. For example, in the criminal process the duration of the sentence is defined and finite, whereas in the civil commitment process detainment is often of indeterminate length and can last a whole lifetime. There are two separate rationales given for justifying the civil commitment process: PWD may be a danger to themselves or others; and the PWD needs treatment. These rationales are often inaccurately applied and not adhered to. For example, there is a tendency to deprive PWD of their liberty on the basis of a need for treatment without giving that treatment.

South American Human Rights Commission suggested that Article 14 (4) of the Chair's draft might be better placed in Article10 which is thematic and speaks to category of PWD.

Regarding Article 14 (5), China pointed to the phrase "national or international standards and noted that different countries have their own domestic laws which may lead to varied interpretations of the text. China urged that the language of the convention be focused and in this spirit suggested merging Articles 11, 13 and 14 of the Chair's text.

WBU emphasized that liberty and security constitute important issues for the convention. The WG should also add access to the written text. Any text meant for the public, including literature and public information, must be formatted for the blind. WFD recalled that a member of the WG raised the issue of how to secure the rights of PWD rights in the judicial process. This is an issue the WG could resolve by writing down measures on how to carry this out.

WNUSP noted the Canadian delegation's reference to language in the ICPPR and raised the argument that detention on the basis of disability is inherently arbitrary. Another approach they offered, is the right to freedom of movement, also in ICPPR, which perhaps more clearly covers detention in private settings and in the home.

Responding to Thailand's comments on the creation of new rights, Sweden clarified that the reason it objects is not because it does not want to extend state obligations, but because the main goal is to get rid of the notion that PWD are different than other people. Sweden stressed that PWD have the same rights.

Lebanon affirmed that the issue of protection is too sensitive a concept, and that it could easily lead to abuse. In addition, there is a need to broaden the notion of confinement to encompass the family. Regarding the proposition to bring in EU language on proportionality, Lebanon stated that many countries may have problems remaining objective when defining what constitutes capacity.

China stressed that it was not calling to eliminate rights important to PWD. PWD should enjoy their rights as provided for in other conventions, including the CAT. PWD should enjoy the right to equality before law and the rights to security and liberty of person. These rights are important to everyone, especially for PWD. China stressed that the WG should not duplicate laws and that the convention should be specific and focused.

New Zealand (NZ) expressed concern over the discussion of the right to liberty and security of the person, as it was not clear that the WG had addressed rights to security. Some PWD are denied legal process because they are seen as unreliable witnesses.

Afternoon Session

Commenced: 3:25 PM
Adjourned: 6:00 PM

This session focused on the text proposed by the Coordinator for draft Article 4 on General Obligations. The text was circulated as a second Conference Room Paper (A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.1) and reflected discussions of the previous day both in the Working Group and in informal thematic consultations of a smaller group of interested delegations. Along with proposed language on 2 paragraphs of Article 4, footnoted to indicate alternative text and their implications, which would be forwarded to the AHC, the CRP contained "working notes" intended to facilitate negotiations in the WG only and which would not be forwarded to the AHC.
The Coordinator again reminded delegates that the task at hand was to provide draft, not final, text as the basis for the negotiations by the AHC.

The Russian Federation called for an extension of the obligations of a State Party as reflected in Para 1 (also referred to as the "chapeau") to non-citizens living in its territory, noting that in Europe, in particular, this was an issue. The Coordinator suggested that PWD who are non-citizens would be treated on the same basis as non citizens generally, but noted that this was a complex and broader issue that would, as reflected in the square brackets and footnotes, be taken up with the AHC.

Japan noted that they would have to consult home country experts on the text and proposed that the paper be discussed again at a later stage. Para 1(a) was important, yet any government would need flexibility and time in implementing its provisions, and for this reason progressive realization was "a necessary element". He argued that points 1 and 4 of the "working notes" should be included somewhere in the Convention as draft text and that that Footnote 2 should be part of the General Obligations section of the text.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) intervened that paragraph 2 seemed to be a shortened version of Article 29 in the Chair's Draft, which more clearly fleshed out in detail state obligations with regard to a specific structure for the involvement of PWD at a national level. She asked if paragraph 2 was a replacement for Article 29 and asserted that PWD should not only be involved in the implementation of the Convention but also in policymaking and evaluation, which impact them. She argued that a reference to this point also be added. The Coordinator said Article 29 would be discussed at a later stage and that the statement in paragraph 2 was intended to take up policymaking issues in relation to implementation, which was different from monitoring compliance of the Convention, which was the subject of Article 29.

Rehabilitation International (RI) noted the focus on discrimination in the first paragraph was narrowing the purpose of the Convention. He suggested replacing the second sentence with "to give effect to the rights of PWD:" He also called for the addition of the concepts of mainstreaming disability and remedies in such a way that is consistent with existing international human rights instruments.

Sierra Leone called for the deletion of the word "public" in 1(d) and the addition of "within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction" after the word "institutions" so it would apply to both public and private entities.

Ireland had several preliminary comments pending consultation with its capital and the EU. Footnote 3 might be too inclusive and potentially reopen discussion on rights set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1(a) should include the additional obligation to "review" national policies and programs as reflected in 5(c) of the EU draft. "Abolishing customs and practices" in 1(a) would unlikely be within the power of a State to alone to ensure and needs further consideration. 1(b) did not appear in the EU Draft, and while based on the Chair's draft (Art 4, 2 (b)) was significantly different in that it dealt with "rights" and not "principles." 1(d) and a proposal by other states to remove the specification of "public" authorities would need to be considered further for its implications in subjecting private institutions to international human rights law. Finally it questioned the principle and placement of paragraph 2 for which there was no parallel in the EU text. The Coordinator clarified that the difference in the level of state obligation with regard to public and private institutions was acknowledged in the fact that (d) and (e) dealt with each of them separately. He reiterated, in reference to Ireland's point on consultation with its capital and need for further review, that while it would not be possible to return to this language in the WG, this language will be open for further discussion in the context of the AHC.

Mexico said the text was comprehensive but not perfect and called for the addition of "to promote" before "ensure" and the addition of the word "full" before "enjoyment of human rights" in the first line of paragraph 1. It agreed with RI's statement that Paragraph 1 narrowed the purpose of the Convention. It said that 2(c) should not be restricted to ensuring rights but should also talk about affirmative and positive action to achieve objectives set forth, which was something highlighted in the Mexican draft in Paragraph 1 and 2(d) of Article 3. It called for the inclusion of the concept of self-determination and full participation in society for PWD with regard to state obligations, and said that the element of international cooperation, which is not just in the form of assistance or charity, but also the exchange of knowledge and experience, should be included in the text, though not necessarily in Article 4, but in one of the initial articles of the Convention.

South African Human Rights Commission agreed with Mexico's statement on the over-emphasis on non-discrimination, though this was an important obligation and principle. It called for the inclusion of language on states obligation to promote rights, raise awareness, to engage in monitoring in this article.

European Disability Forum (EDF) affirmed the statements made by RI and WNUSP. He called for the addition of "with necessary support made available to them" to the end of paragraph 2 and recalled that within the EU, there were provisions for state dialogue with PWD and their organizations promoting their involvement and participation. He cited in particular, in the European Directive on Equal Treatment In Employment (2000) and hoped that the EU would follow the same line here that has been followed internally.

Landmine Survivors Network (LSN) drew attention to the South African Human Rights Commission's statement and referred the WG to Article 34 of the Bangkok Draft (page 53 of the Compilation,) or Article 29 of the Chair's Draft (page 58 of the Compilation) and supported the suggestion that monitoring be referenced in this section. He noted that progressive realization must only apply in the context of economic, social and cultural rights and referred the WG to Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESR) as the standard on this point. He clarified that the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights was not conditional on international cooperation, and said that international cooperation was a means to assist many countries in achieving implementation.

India suggested that 1(b) be separated into two parts and the second part be merged with 1(e). Economic, social, and cultural rights are "vital" and should be reflected in this article. As proposed by the South African Human Rights Commission and Mexico, the text should also incorporate affirmative action.

Colombia wanted to see reference to data collection and statistics. In order for states to fulfill their obligations they must understand the trends and causes of disability. Elements concerning state budgets and resources should be included in the Article, as should those dealing with prevention and monitoring of the Convention. The Coordinator noted that the issue of statistics has already been raised, some delegations were opposed to its inclusion, for reasons of infringement on the privacy of PWD, but this broader issue would be revisited.

Mali supported Mexico's intervention on the use of the words "promotion and protection" in the first line of Paragraph 1 and called for the addition of "judicial measures" to the first line of 1(a), as implementation was also a judicial concern. He questioned the obligation of "abolish[ing] customs or practices" in 1(a) and asked what measures states could take to implement this, as some practices have been in existence for hundreds of years and are not all necessarily harmful to disabled people. He proposed replacing "abolish" with "harmonize".

Disability Australia Limited suggested the inclusion of a remedies provision into the article, as reflected in Article 5 of the Bangkok Draft, which could be improved upon. They also wanted to see language on deep-rooted stereotypes and prejudice, which is discussed in Article 8 of the Bangkok Draft.

Ireland thanked EDF for calling attention to the EU Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and confirmed the EU's engagement in dialogue with NGOs. He highlighted the difference between the Directive and the text in Paragraph 2 as currently drafted, which in his opinion, was "not ripe" for forwarding to the AHC. Keeping in mind the need for brevity in this text, he queried the Coordinator on the drafting and revising process.

The Coordinator said he would reflect on the discussion and the level of support or opposition for elements in the text and will incorporate these as appropriate. He reminded that the proposed text was not binding and would just serve as a basis for discussion, but there were limits on the inclusion of individual proposals in the text, because that would make for a very long text. He asked members to bear in mind that concerns may be taken up in a later part of the Convention, and that this particular article was not the whole text. He reminded the group that their draft text would be imperfect but they would do their best to see it reflected the discussion. Ireland thanked the Coordinator for the explanation and urged members not to make too many changes to the chapeau of the article and to be careful to not overload the provision.

New Zealand believed that paragraph 28 of the New Zealand paper, which refers to the principle of partnership with disabled people should be articulated as a general obligation, though it did not necessarily have to be articulated in this specific article. It said that it was clear disabled people need to be involved but if too many other stakeholders were added to the list, it could weaken the point made in paragraph 2.

Republic of Korea expressed reservations on including "other organizations" to Paragraph 2 noting that it should highlight the participation and involvement of PWD. He called for the insertion of "proactive" and "active" before "involvement" in paragraph 2 and supported the addition of "promote" to the first line of paragraph 1.

China called paragraph 1 a matter of a guiding principle and said it was too negative to talk about discrimination and called for the promotion of rights from a more positive angle. China recommended "undertake measures to ensure the realisation of rights of PWD" as an alternative second sentence. He concurred with other delegations that there should be reference to state obligations in social and economic development, because it is closely linked to the realization of the human rights of PWD. China proposed new language on these specific obligations of states including to "incorporate disability costs into national economic and social development policies and programs."

Sweden expressed skepticism on the subtitle "general obligations" and said that, from a logical point of view, it would be better not to have subtitles, so as not to prejudice the subject matter in the text. It pointed out that some delegations had said that content from almost every other article be included in this section and asked how this article would then differ from the rest of the text. It would then, she said; make the task at hand harder, if every state obligation were included in the general obligations section. She agreed that discrimination was not a separate issue and that the chapeau would need redrafting accordingly.

The Coordinator said that he hoped that the inclination to make the section a shopping list would be ameliorated as the discussion moved to outlining substantive obligations. Some delegations, particularly PWD and their organizations, were keen on having subtitles/titles, so this will remain, with the decision to be made by the AHC whether or not subtitles or titles would be part of the text.

World Blind Union restated its opposition to including prevention in this Convention, which was for and of PWD. An inclusion of civil society and other institutions in Paragraph 2 goes "a bit too far", as they have historically been the voice on disability issues and have always had the right to be involved, whereas PWD have not. The text in this Paragraph be kept as is, because it opens doors to PWD for the first time to have a voice in issues that concern them. This meeting is a valuable a chance for NGOs to discuss the document; next time would be "too late for us."

Morocco pointed out that there were three kinds of prevention: primary, secondary, and tertiary; with the last two relating to PWD. This aspect must be addressed in the Convention. As PWD are citizens, and every country has censuses for citizens, a databank would give states a picture on the needs of PWD. Morocco proposed the addition of a provision to "call upon state parties to include in their budgets at the sectorial level allocations for PWD" in 1(a).

Venezuela said, like Mexico and Morocco, that the word "promote" should be included in the first sentence of paragraph one and pointed out that the data collection issue was dealt with in Article 3 of the Venezuelan proposal, which discussed census taking of PWD in the context of planning and estimating their needs. He called for the compilation of statistics on disability and said that disability and PWD in the capacity of citizens were two issues. He added that the repeated mentions of discrimination in Paragraph 1 was unnecessary.

Slovenia proposed that footnote one be moved to the section on monitoring and pointed out that collection of statistics was the first part in monitoring. It supported reference to the cooperation between governments and NGOs in paragraph 2.

WNUSP addressed the issues of customs and practices in 1(a) and cited Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says that sensitivity to cultures and customs is an obligation of states. At the same time attention needed to be given to practices that would be of concern to many countries, such as confinement of PWD by their families and communities. The Convention should find a way to address those kinds of practices, which should not be continued. This obligation could be addressed through promoting an environment free of stereotypes through education noting that practices by individuals may or may not have a cultural basis. A strong provision on cooperation between NGOs and states was needed. In relation to the issue of statistics, that there was concern about issues of privacy when people could be deprived or life, liberty, autonomy, on the basis of disability. In this regard, states could use the data against PWD. The recognition of right to life or survival, in this context, could be implicated by a policy of keeping data. Statistics of PWD as a social group within society need to be assessed in order to help meet their needs but data collection, if done, should focus on the human rights and participation PWD, and collection on the medical or impairment conditions of PWD should not be allowed.

Jamaica cautioned against drawing distinctions between organizations in paragraph 2 and proposed that "their" be replaced by "PWD and representatives of PWD and their organizations." She called on WG members to keep in mind that there are government representatives who have disabilities as well, which the Coordinator said was something to be mindful of. He surmised that paragraph 2 should be seen as a minimum and not a limit or a maximum requirement.

South Africa said that the matter of close consultation with PWD could not be overemphasized and pointed out that in South Africa, a history of active involvement and participation of PWD has led to meaningful state initiatives. She endorsed the proposal that Paragraph 2 include a statement on mainstreaming and concurred with the Mexican proposal to include the word "promote" in the first sentence of paragraph 1, as an "action point of obligation was fundamental.

Thailand agreed that paragraph 2 should be seen as a minimum requirement for states and that it did not been that it could/would exclude involvement by others in this regard, He opined that it should emphasize inclusion and involvement of PWD and their organizations, even though other organizations will be included as they always have been. He concurred with Mexico on the inclusion of the word "promote" in the first sentence of paragraph 1 to make it more of a positive statement. He cautioned that the general obligations section should not be too specific and said his delegation would be cautious if collection of statistics would be used to perpetuate the disadvantage of PWD, but would have no problem in its inclusion if it would not perpetuate disadvantages.

Germany agreed with Sweden and Ireland on the issue of discrimination and referenced research done on human rights and disability, which shows that discrimination is not the only problem. Paragraph 1 should include reference to "full human rights" and should include the phrase "eliminate discrimination." She also pointed out that research in this area also shows that the issue of remedies is crucial for PWD and thus, this article needed to reflect that, without creating a new right but using Article 2(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights as a basis.

Colombia said that the concepts of prevention and data collection should be part of the Convention. It clarified its previous point on prevention and said that it was speaking of social management of risk, a new concept that came out of the World Bank. She reference natural disasters as causing and/or aggravating disability and poverty and pointed out that when government does a census, it is not trying to persecute but achieve higher standard of living.

China pointed out that there are two fundamentally different views in drafting a Convention- one perspective is that of discrimination (CEDAW, CERD), and the other is the promotion and protection of rights. This point implicates the drafting of the text and said that the name of the AHC was a proper name and is the basis by which the WG was established. To this end, if they were to draft a non-discrimination convention, they would refer to CEDAW or CERD, if not, they would refer to other conventions. He reminded members that 12 days ago, the GA adopted a resolution, which reiterated the mandate of WG, which should work from the point of view of human rights and social development. To this end, he noted a problem with the direction of current text, that is, non-discrimination, which does not refer to the protection and promotion of rights of PWD. The Coordinator replied that it was clear that paragraph 1 should be broadened out and that there had been a lot of support for Mexico to make the paragraph go beyond issue of discrimination.

Serbia and Montenegro agreed with Sweden that the title was a problem and called for a redefinition because it "put forth a list of wishes." It was content with the first sentence of paragraph 1, but would not object to the addition of the word "promote" as many others had suggested. It agreed with Ireland's statement on 1(b) and called for the addition of "to this end/to this effect" in the second sentence of Paragraph 1. He said cooperation between governments and NGOs was significant and was happy that some of the state delegations had representatives who were disabled. He pointed out that the data collection issue had to be dealt with delicately as it could be both advantageous to PWD from a human rights perspective (issues such as employment rates) but could also be a disadvantage as well. To close, he warned that the article should not be too long.

Ireland said that overloading paragraph one, which was general, would not be helpful and disagreed that the general view was that it had to be expanded and noted the problem of putting all the content of the Convention into one article. It surmised that there was a need to set out measures to give attention to various principles, not just one. It concurred with the additions proposed by Serbia and Montenegro in the second sentence of paragraph 1.

Lebanon concurred with RI that the provision for mainstreaming of disability should be part of this section, based on its country's experience. It also added that 1(a) should also include a reference to judicial and financial measures and state budgets. He proposed the addition of a monitoring element to paragraph 2, the addition "to this end" as a replacement to the second sentence of paragraph 1, and the addition of the word "promote" before the word "ensure" in the first sentence of paragraph 1.

The Coordinator suggested that a provision for data collection could be included if appropriate language could be developed. Colombia responded positively to this suggestion and called for interested delegations meet informally to draft language that would jeopardise privacy concerns. Ireland offered to participate with the caveat that it was uncertain about whether or where this article might fit in the existing draft Article.

WNUSP reminded delegates that all definitions of discrimination in human rights law refer to both purpose and effect and that that PWD have to look at the impact of proposals, and evaluate them based on lived experiences. She also added that language of disadvantage might not be adequate when referring to data collection because of its subjective nature.

The World Federation of the Deaf and Blind said it considered the question of statistics to be a question for disability organizations and not a question of state obligations.


The Disability Negotiations Daily Summaries are published by the Landmine Survivors Network, a US based international organization with amputee support networks in six mine affected / developing countries. They cover the intergovernmental proceedings of the Ad Hoc Committee on the human rights of people with disabilities. Reporters covering the Working Group meetings are Elizabeth Kissam, Jennifer Perry and Zahabia Adamaly (editor). The Summaries are posted on line by noon the following day at www.worldenable.net and http://www.rightsforall.org They are translated into Japanese (Japanese Society for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities (dinf-j@dinf.ne.jp) and Spanish by the Inter American Institute on Disability (iidisab@aol.com) If you are interested in translating and disseminating the Summaries over the course of the Working Group meetings, and would like your contact information to be distributed, or have comments / questions, please write to Zahabia@landminesurvivors.org