Volume 3, #5
January 9, 2004

Morning Session

Commenced: 10:30 AM
Adjourned: 1:04 PM

RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVACY, HOME, THE PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY, AND THE RIGHT TO MARRY (continued).

Canada noted the concept of individual privacy is insufficiently brought out. They were not aware of a right to sexuality per se; perhaps "a right to express one's sexuality on an equal footing with others" with a qualification for children and minors would be more appropriate. Standard Rule 9 could be a basis for Paragraph 1. The reference to "substantial social support" "would have to be considered very carefully" given its resource implications, financial or otherwise. The Child Rights Convention (CRC) should be the basis for Paragraph 4. The last clause should specify that children would not be removed from their disabled parents "solely" on the basis of their disability, so as to balance with the commitments in Article 9, paragraph 1 of the CRC, which allows for children to be separated from their parents when it is in the best interests of the child. This Article of the CRC, on the rights of children with disabilities, should be referenced in this convention.

Morocco echoed Canada's position on the right to sexuality, noted the sensitivity of this issue and countries' differing views on it and proposed rewording of paragraph 1 with a reference to concepts in other human rights instruments.

Landmine Survivors Network (LSN) supported the view of the German delegation on the issue of sexual exploitation of PWD, which was presented in the last session. This article was linked to the article on freedom from torture, and Article 34 of the CRC could provide language that would also be useful in this article. The wording of the right to privacy should be clarified and offered an alternative text in this regard, which was not found in the compilation.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) objected to Canada's proposal to include the word "solely" in paragraph 4 because it implied that disability could be a factor in determining whether a child could be removed from the parent. The equivalent case would be in employment as if one were to say that one could not deprive a person of employment solely on the basis of disability. Regarding sexuality, this article needed to address this issue even if it was not a right, as deprivation of this choice happens in instances of adults living in institutions, or in other situations in which there is a high degree of caregiver influence on daily life. She reiterated that adults had a right to form intimate relations, and cautioned about focusing specifically on institutional settings, because that would imply that such institutions should be in existence.

Lebanon supported Morocco's position and suggested wording that "all men and women with disabilities of a legal age, have the right to form a family." It supported LSN's proposal though noted that it might better be placed in the article on violence.

The World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) asked if the article covered the issue of forced sterilization of PWD which was a frequent practice in many countries. In the case of deaf girls parents are often advised to do this so as to avoid pregnancy, though the practice of rape and sexual abuse still goes on after the sterilization because there was no risk, then, of pregnancy. The Coordinator said that it was covered in paragraph 2 but that there could be provisions in other articles as well.

Sierra Leone noted that the right to sexuality was related to reproductive rights and the first sentence of paragraph one could be amended "PWD have the right to form and have sexual and other intimate relationships with anyone of their choice."

New Zealand found the article to be lacking in terms of protection of privacy, especially in the home. It noted that home ownership was something to be considered in this regard, as so many PWD live in institutionalized accommodations, and the sense of ownership in those instances was with the institution and not with the person. It would like, then, to see reference to privacy in one's own home. NZ wanted to ensure that the rights of the child are not used to justify removing one from a disabled parent and echoed the WNUSP position that this paragraph should not be weakened.

Inclusion International (II) agreed with the WFD that forced sterilization still occurs in many parts of the world and needed to be eliminated.

The Inter-American Institute on Disability (IID) followed up on its previous intervention on the right to reproduction and procreation by agreeing with the WFD that an explicit banning of forced sterilization due to disability should be referenced in the article.

Rehabilitation International (RI) suggested the WG reference General Comment 12 from CEDAW. He agreed that the privacy issue was critically important. In this regard, the language in the Biomedicine Convention of the Council of Europe, Article 11 and 12 on medical and genetic testing, related to the abuse of information on the grounds of genetic heritage, could be relevant for this convention, though not necessarily in this specific article.

WNUSP cautioned members that labeling something as having a "health purpose" does not necessarily mean it cannot be an abuse of information. WNUSP had provided text on nondisclosure of medical records in Article 26 of the Bangkok Draft. While this was in relation to the right to health they would recommend that this belongs in an article on the right to privacy. They also shared South Africa's view that privacy in general may not be best dealt with in an article on family, sexuality etc as was reflected in the Chair's draft. In relation to New Zealand's intervention on the right to privacy in one's own home, the WNUSP had provided text on this issue on page 125 of the Compilation, that included the right to choose caregivers, apart from the right to privacy. Republic of Korea (ROK) supported RI and highlighted situations an additional situation in which the right to privacy was abused, when PWD in institutions are forced to share rooms together.

The Coordinator noted that discussion on this article was very thorough and that it would be possible to resolve the few differences that had surfaced among the delegates on the article and that proposed text on this article would be forthcoming.

RIGHT TO LIVE IN AND BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY

Disabled People International-Africa (DPI Africa) proposed additional language to Paragraph 2 (a) that prohibited exiling PWD from the community.

World Federation of the Deaf Blind (WFDB) underlined the importance of this right article for the deaf blind because of the perception that this particular group is not able to shoulder the responsibilities that come with this, like owning a home.

IID called for this article take a decisive step to eradicate institutionalization as a legitimate option for PWD. It should ensure that PWD are not isolated from other human beings and proposed that the article make reference to the need for education on socio-cultural changes necessary so that communities move forward and eliminate practices that might prohibit participation of PWD in the community.

Japan proposed separating Paragraphs 1 and 2 as they could be contradictory. Clarification on what is meant by "institutional facilities" is necessary given that there are certain institutions which might benefit PWD.

Jamaica agreed with Japan of an inconsistency in the article. This could be resolved by giving the PWD the right to choose to be institutionalized, adding "without his/her consent" to the end of 2(a).

Disabled People International (DPI) supported the right to be part of a community, regardless of the type of disability, as this was a key issue in the realization of the human rights of PWD. Many of the national affiliates of DPI had in fact emerged as a result of protest to the institutionalization of disabled people. DPI strongly believes that institutionalization should not be a valid option, no matter how severe the disability.

Ireland generally supported the underlying ideas of the article but had some questions on the wording. He pointed out that no one has the absolute right to choose where they lived, that this could even mean a right to live in a place beyond the PWD financial means, especially given the reference to financial support. As this is a legal instrument, the text should avoid ambiguity. Institutionalization has been discussed at length in the thematic consultations and suggested that this issue could be better dealt with in that context. Community living as dealt with in 2 (b) is not necessarily the same as living in the community, as the former could mean living in an institution, which was clearly not the intention of the paragraph.

Inclusion International (II) described the personal experience of the total desolation of living in an institution for 15 years and took exception with the positions of Ireland and Jamaica, asserting that there was no right to be institutionalised. PWD who are perceived as having "high needs" can in fact live in the community with its support.

RI called the article "critically important in the overall project of liberating PWD to be the masters of their own lives" and noted that commitment to autonomy and personal choice was at the heart of the article. There was a conceptual distinction between paragraph 1 and 2 and proposed that the title of the article be changed to say "right to independent living and to be part of the community" with subsequent necessary changes in paragraph 1 (due to the title change). The article should provide "an exceptionally strong presumption" against institutionalization but prioritize above this the choice of the person in where they live, so that for example, an individual could then choose to stay in a group home.

Lebanon considered this article relevant for everyone's right to choose with whom and where they wanted to live. It was in favor of a state obligation to promote the right of PWD to live in the community and find homes that are integrated into the community. It proposed that paragraph 1 be amended such that "no person with a disability should be forced to live in an institution" and the Article title would be changed to the "right to live in a community and be part of it."

Colombia asked PWD and their organizations for alternatives in cases such as abandoned disabled children if there should be no institution. If a home could not be offered they would be sent to the streets. This article also needed to serve as a tool for states to protect people that might harm themselves or others, such as a case of a schizophrenic person "in crisis." The Coordinator noted that states have obligations with regard to its citizens and that this was a matter in which a balance with these obligations had to be found. He pointed out that there is always more than one dimension to any particular issue.

South Africa hoped that the article would also refer to the extended family where it exists because some PWD are considered an appendage of the extended family, and not of value. It also called for the qualification of paragraph 2 with the word "respectfully." Paragraph 1 placed a significant financial bearing on State Parties and hoped that this would be fully explored at the next AHC.

India reiterated that it represents a population of over one billion people, of whom "the number of people who have severe/multiple disabilities may be greater than the population of some countries". Abandonment and destitution relation to PWD is common to many developing countries, and the financial commitments as called for from the State in the current wording in the first paragraph cannot be supported. "Institutionalisation is often not a choice" for the state, which would not be able to extend the financial support necessary for independent living for a population for whom food and shelter is a desperate need. "There will be an enormous difference between developed and developing countries on this issue" she stressed. In this regard, ethics and criteria need to be developed that govern staff and conditions in these institutions. She proposed consideration for Article 11(e) of the Indian Draft on the Right to Rehabilitation Services for alternative text.

New Zealand called for an overall statement on the concept of the "ordinary life" as the Article concentrated too much on services. It noted the importance of having one's own home as stated in Article 16, in terms of the self control it affords the PWD, is connected to the concept of autonomy, and highlights the obligation to provide services to people living at home rather than supporting institutions that provide services to PWD as has been the case. The article also needed to reference the right to live in a community "of one's choice," which is important in the context of rural and remote areas.

The World Blind Union (WBU) noted that there should be no difference in the treatment of abandoned children with disabilities from those who do not have a disability. It was always better for all children to live in a family situation than in an institution. It should the responsibility of the government to find such alternatives. Financial restrictions on choosing where to live applies to all people, but the right of PWD to move to one area from another must be protected.

Jamaica cautioned that it should not be construed as being pro-institutionalist to call for a provision allowing for the extreme circumstances states will face from time to time in dealing with this issue. He proposed the rewording of 2(a) so that "no PWD should be forced to reside in an institution without his or her choice" as Lebanon had stated. In this regard, the important and fundamental right to choice would be preserved.

Thailand prioritized the importance of the principle of freedom of choice and individual autonomy above anything else in relation to institutionalisation. Disability was more a "salad bar and not a melting pot" and in this regard the Convention must reflect that there is no one way to address disability and must accept differences. The delegate highlighted his own experience as where his education in Braille would not have been possible had it not been for the residential school for the blind he lived in for 10 years, which he regarded as a positive experience. If one lives in a remote community the opportunities to learn Braille may not exist. Special residential schools also let students maintain their cultural identity and heritage. He was uncomfortable with 2(a) and the last sentence of paragraph 1 and would revisit the matter when discussion turned to the article on education. He noted that the article should not only reflect one model because the "cost of a person to be deprived of self-development is too high to choose one model over another."

WNUSP said that there might be a way to deal with Thailand's point on schools vs. institutions in how institutionalization is defined and reiterated the point that such schools might be different than what Inclusion International was talking about. "We may not have an easy answer to the question of resources" but the issue here is the perception by others that PWD need to be segregated from society, where a person without a disability makes the decision for/about the PWD, and the need for a shift away from this paradigm. Here the institution becomes a prison. So autonomy is the central issue in institutionalization. In addition, the "right to live in a family" could also be a problem because some families can confine PWD in the home - the qualification of a right to have autonomy within the family environment should be added here, which would allow for supportive family situations as those raised by the WBU. The notion of PWD deserving an "ordinary life" over that of services was important, with the ultimate objective of universal design in mind. The central issue here is the freedom of choice and the opportunities for PWD to exercise that choice. Regarding the quandary between institutionalization and living in the streets, one way would be the obligation of states to provide public housing.

Canada said that members should be careful about not inadvertently establishing rights when there were talking about freedoms and choices. Even developed nations have problems in providing all we would want to PWD; that is, the responsibility cannot be met by absolute obligations. He noted the institutionalisation of his own father against his will as an example of situations that can be beyond the capability of the family to support, at which point the state needs to be empowered to step in. While there should be a strong presumption of individual choice we "must not close door" to those hard situations where a balance is necessary.

Morocco also supported the right of PWD to make a choice to enter into an institution. A principle adopted by UNESCO, ILO, and WHO of "shared views" on CBR programs should be added to Article 17.

Slovenia said that the first part of the article contradicted with the second and proposed to either delete 2(a) or link it to the freedom to choose.

Germany emphasized that civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights are independent and indivisible, especially when it comes to PWD. The right to live in the community entails 2 aspects - the freedom of choice, and the right to an adequate standard of living as set forth in Article 11 in the ICESR. The implications of this for PWD are they do not have the choice to live outside of an institution even if they are not committed to an institution by police or other forces. The question of forced institutionalization is a separate issue, that, as the Irish delegation has suggested, should be dealt with elsewhere. Accordingly Paragraph 1 should be reformulated so that "PWD have their equal freedom to choose their own living arrangements. This freedom includes the right not to reside in an institutional facility." Paragraph 2 should be reformulated to reflect Article 11 of the ESCR that reflects states recognition of the right of PWD to an adequate standard of living "which enables PWD to live independently." The term "independent living" as proposed by RI in a title change is preferable to that of "community based rehabilitation" as proposed by Lebanon. The latter practice, while widely recognised and used, does not fit with the purpose of this Convention.

Republic of Korea emphasized that the issue of community living autonomously is crucial to this convention and supported RI's and Germany's position regarding the title of this article to include "the right to enjoy independent living." This is not a new concept and is reflected in the Preamble to the Bangkok Draft.

Serbia and Montenegro recognized that "one of the preconditions to exercise the freedom of choice of where to live would be the necessary support" for PWD. Attentive to the circumstances of developing countries such as India, it suggested that a provision obliging states to act in this regard "within the maximum resources" should be included. N order to make for a simpler text, the Paragraph on institutionalization, 2(a), should be deleted, and dealt with elsewhere in the Convention.

South African Human Rights Commission supported the amendment to the title proposed by RI and Germany adding "independent living", as well as the deletion called for by India of States' obligations to provide financial support so that Paragraph 1 ends after "their families." In accordance with the title change Paragraph 2 (a) should either be deleted or qualified with the phrase "against their will." Given the focus of the article emphasizing informed choice, measures and actions to enhance this should be included, such as the obligation of states to educate PWD about their choices.

Inclusion International referred to programs from the World Bank that showed that even in poor countries, attitudes could be changed, which is the central issue, towards greater acceptance of PWD in the community. Often it was more expensive to have PWD living in institutions than in the community. It was therefore necessary to say something against institutions because if the article did not refer to it, states would not be forced to deal with the problem. It added that the poverty problem should be dealt with in this convention.

Disability Australia Limited endorsed the position stated by RI, Germany, Ireland that freedom of choice and autonomy are at the forefront of the article. However the "genuine problem of destitution" in extended families in societies that are transitioning to nuclear families cannot be avoided, especially for people with multiple and severe disabilities. States need to respond to the need for safe shelters for grown-up and adult children. Families of PWD as well as PWD themselves have limited economic capacity. In order to accommodate the diversity of circumstances and cultural practices that exist among PWD, this Article should include a provision granting states the freedom, if circumstances so warranty, to provide subsidized homes that would allow PWD to choose their own homes ? whether to live with similar people, or to "suffer institutionalization and confinement within the four walls of a family" if they so choose.

The World Federation and Deaf echoed Thailand's position that with the personal experience of its representative, who "learned a lot in institutions, and that's why I'm here." Yet it also influenced his personality so that "I still need psycho-therapy from time to time." Reflecting this double side of institutionalization, he supported the position of WNUSP and DAL that "there should be a way for PWD to live together without being locked up" or living regimented lives that "were better for the staff of the institutions." The difference between children and adults should be taken into account. A creative solution should be found in the case of developing countries, where "it may be better to have a roof over one's head than to sleep in the streets". Addressing the specific problems of the deaf-blind even when in institutions ? isolation and a lack of stimulation because of the inability to communicate with one another ? may be a luxury in a poor country.

DPI Africa noted that the "right to community living" should be retained in addition to the "right to independent living" because in rural Africa, a mother who gives birth to a child with a disability is often exiled. "Institutions are not an answer to poverty" ? one cannot argue that because in developing country societies there are PWD are poor they should then be put into institutions. This "does not make any sense." Central to the debate about institutions is that they suspend PWD's rights. The problem here is that "no one is watching these institutions." When you "close the door" such a regimented lifestyle becomes possible. Finally the argument that institutions are cheaper than having PWD live in the community cannot be made in this Convention, "because no one has costed this" and there is therefore no basis for this. If we start costing these issues, we risk complicating this process.

China proposed that the term "institutionalized" should be clarified in 2(a), and the provision should prevent mandatory or forced choice of institutionalization. PWD are the same as others and should be able to choose their way of living /residence taking into account other services.

Mexico believed that this Article should be "seriously reformulated." The 2 elements that need to be included in this article are: refraining from discrimination so that members of the community recognize the right of the PWD and their institutions to join in the community; and "all necessary measures" to integrate PWD into the community should be recognised.

Lebanon noted that state policies should: 1. "always give priority to life within the community" and this is not the same as CBR; 2. provide accommodations so that freedom of choice is possible; 3. whether the person is living in an institution or living independently, the PWD's quality of life and dignity should be respected. Difficult though this may be this "should be our ultimate goal".

WNUSP sought to address emerging positions trying to separate the issue of institutionalization with institutionalization that uses police powers to exclude PWD. Such distinctions are "hypocritical" and "dishonest". This article needs to deal with this whole area of life called institutionalisation, both short and long-term, as both involve the deprivation of the liberty, and are prisons. In this context, we cannot call for institutions to be "made more humane" ? whether people end up there due to police powers or economic and social factors, the central problem remains society's ignorance in integrating these PWD.

Thailand suggested developing a distinction between a school for blind and/or deaf situation and institutionalization that is forced. The representative noted that while he personally enjoyed being in a school for the blind at the elementary level, he also enjoyed his secondary studies in an integrated environment. The article should not embrace a term that indicates a practice or movement, as indicated by the term "independent living" ? the term "to live independently" is a generic term that is preferable instead.

World Blind Union likewise sought to make a distinction between institutions and special education schools for deaf and blind people. This article should protect such educational opportunities. Schools are different than institutions because the parents of the children are still in custody of those children, which is not the case in other situations. It supported RI's title change and noted that the concept of independent living should be referred to, not the movement.

Mali cautioned that if 2(a) was eliminated, people would be left in need. In the African continent specialized institutions provide education and social reintegration of PWD. 2(a) should instead read "the state should ensure PWD has an independent life, which does not exclude institutions with the consent of the individual or the family, as necessary". In this regard, the clause could preserve the independence for non-minors and prohibit forced confinement. This clause has the added benefit of recognizing the role of the family in integration.

II sought to focus the discussion on the central issue, not that PWD "need to fit into something" but that the community needs to accept them. He endorsed educational schools but for people with intellectual disabilities institutions are never a choice.

Sierra Leone said that institutionalization should not be excluded in 2(a) and agreed with Canada that in certain circumstances, individuals might have to go to an institution, while others might have to be at home. In either case the state should provide all the services to meet the needs of PWD. The concept of institutionalization should not be separate from the concept of community. Institutions are, "broadly speaking, a part of the community." This article should therefore address both aspects ? the requirements from the institution on the one hand, and protection of the choice of the PWD on the other.

WFD echoed the concern of the WBU in that it did not want to see the text force deaf schools to close, and did not want the article to be interpreted as saying that. The educational setting "must be secured in this article." It should ensure independent living in families, in the home, and within the community. It recognized that there was a separate Article 24 on education and there should be no inconsistency with that.

New Zealand stressed that an underpinning principle in the Convention should be that PWD have the right to the same treatment as other people. "If it wouldn't be done that way for non-disabled people, we shouldn't look at it as a solution for disabled people". For example, an alternative to the need for blind people to learn Braille should be to make Braille more readily available in local schools.

WNUSP stressed that the situation of children can be addressed separately from adults. While it was understood that parents will need to make certain decisions on behalf of children, in the case of adults, there can be no substitute decision-making based on the principle of free choice.

Afternoon session

Commenced: 3:10pm
Recessed: 1pm

The WG agreed on a programme of work for the remaining time available, and proceeded to address the rights of children with disabilities (Article 18), the right to participate in political and public life (Article 19), the right to own and administer property (Article 20) and the issue of accessibility (Article 21). Regarding Article 21, the WG discussed combining this article with Article 22, which deals with the right to mobility and Article 28 on the right to universal/inclusive design.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Programme of work

Four "Texts Proposed by the Coordinator" circulated as Conference Room Papers, will be discussed at the Monday afternoon session of Jan. 12. Two of these were distributed at the morning session of Jan 9: A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.3 entitled "Equal Recognition as a Person before the Law" and based on Article 11 of the Chair's text; and A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.4 entitled "Liberty and security of the person" based on Article 14 of the Chair's text. The remaining two proposals, to be developed following thematic consultations, concern Article 13 and 15 of the Chair's text.

Using the Chair's text as a framework, the WG has 11 articles yet to consider, in addition to the Preamble, Definitions and Monitoring. The documents produced by the thematic consultations should also be discussed in the WG plenary. Time will need to be allotted to adopting a WG report and a WG draft convention text for submission to the Ad Hoc Committee. The Coordinator suggested that priority should be given to the substantive discussion on the remaining issues and that the time allotted for adoption of a report and the draft text be as short as practicable. He recommended that substantive discussion continue until the final day of the WG meeting, which would be reserved for adopting the report and the draft text. Ireland concurred recognizing that a second reading of certain articles, which it had previously called for, would be a lower priority than ensuring that all issues are covered and a draft produced. Sierra Leone suggested completing discussion of the articles of the Chair's text to the extent possible up to Article 28 by Thursday. Jamaica concurred, reminding members that there will be other opportunities to address details later in the process. Mexico urged discipline in length of interventions and, to that end, recommended that more time be allotted between the preparation of the Coordinator's texts and their discussion in the WG so that ideas and opinions could be discussed outside the meeting room, hopefully leading to more focused debate during sessions. The Coordinator's suggestion was accepted.

Monitoring

The Coordinator suggested that monitoring is a broader political issue than specific rights in relation to PWD, and could be left to the AHC, as could the final clauses, if time does not allow for WG discussion. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the WG would be able come to a final agreement to present to the AHC. IID asserted that, from an NGO perspective, the issue of monitoring is critical and integral and discussions should be held. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) agreed to the Coordinator's suggestion to establish a thematic consultation to look at this issue involving delegations with a particular interest in this subject.

Allocation of time for debate of specific issues

The Coordinator suggested that each issue be allocated one hour for general debate and one hour for debate of the Text Proposed by the Coordinator. Adequate coverage of topics in this time period will require focused and disciplined debate and avoidance of repetition. Sierra Leone suggested that certain articles may not require a thematic consultation. Ireland stressed that it was important to make a decision about that after having debated the articles, and not before. The Coordinator concurred that the small group process may not be necessary for each article and that, when directed by consensus of the WG, the Coordinator could develop a text for an article without convening a small group.

Preparation of WG text for submission to the AHC

Sierra Leone proposed that the Coordinator, having listened to discussion on the Texts Proposed by the Coordinator, prepare a revised draft text based on the views expressed to be adopted "ad referendum". The Coordinator emphasized that the draft report of the WG would make clear that the draft text is being proposed to the AHC as a document for discussion. Delegations in the AHC have many other issues to raise as well as reservations about aspects of the text. South Africa noted that although it hoped that the text to be prepared by the Coordinator would take into account restructuring proposals, it would be willing to accept the structure of the Chair's text with qualifying language in the report of the WG that these issues will be dealt with at a later date. The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) asked if the WG would see the draft text as it is developed in advance of Friday so as to consider it fully. The Coordinator responded that the process the WG has been using will continue be followed. For each topic there will first be general discussion, followed by a thematic consultation, which will produce a text. This text will then be discussed in the WG, trying to leave a gap in time as Mexico has suggested. Then a revised text will come from the Coordinator within a day or so of the discussion of the first text and these will be integrated into the draft text for submission to the AHC. None of these revised texts have yet been issued, but efforts will be made to provide them early next week.

RIGHTS OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITES

Ireland found this article "disappointing" providing a "significantly lesser degree for commitment" than its parallel article in the Child Rights Convention. While its first two paragraphs correspond to Article 23 of the CRC, paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the CRC, providing assistance free of charge, is omitted in the Chair's text. This underlines the dangers of restating rights already covered in international human rights law. What the WG should examine at this point is how best to implement the rights contained in existing conventions and how better to put in practice the commitments entered into in the CRC. There are no measures to ensure that the commitments of Article 29.1 (a) of the CRC, on education being directed to the development of the child's personality talents, mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential, be implemented. This is the same for the issues of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation (Article 34 of the CRC) and the cruel treatment of children (Article 37). Paragraph 3 of the Chair's article acknowledges the right of parents and families of children with disabilities to appropriate information, but does not grant children the same right. These issues should be addressed from a "much more proactive view point" requiring further consultations. The Chair's text is not an advancement on our existing commitments, in fact "far from it." Germany fully endorsed Ireland's statements.

World Federation of the Deaf-Blind (WFDB) endorsed Ireland's and Germany's positions. The article's language needs to be made disabled-child specific. It currently reflects a society of hearing and seeing people who see this is as the ideal. The notion of a "full and decent life" does not mirror the possibilities and experiences of a different world that the deaf-blind child explores and communicates in. The child does not have the possibility to develop its own qualities, through tactile exploration for example. Information to parents is crucial but must be done correctly. Many parents have unrealistic dreams for their children, especially in the case of deaf-blind children. There is a need to have counseling around parents and children as early intervention.

Slovenia stressed that education is a priority to be highlighted in paragraph 2.

South Africa endorsed comments made by the EU and German representatives and proposed the reference to "special care" in Article 18.2 be changed to "provision of appropriate services"

LSN noted that the CRC represents a significant development in establishing the principle of autonomy in relation to children with disabilities. LSN outlines integral aspects of this autonomy: the right to express their views on all matters of concern to them and to have their views taken seriously in accordance with their age and maturity; the right to exercise rights on their own behalf consistent with their evolving capacities; building on the Chair's Draft, article 18(1), on page 132 of the Compilation, which addresses the promotion of "self-reliance", the right to support and encouragement to develop their capacities so that they can participate in the exercise of their rights and take increasing levels of responsibility for their own lives. In addition, LSN endorsed Article 18(3) of the Chair's draft which provides for appropriate support to parents of children with disabilities. The provision should acknowledge that children with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. In addition, in countries lacking a formal government or experiencing armed conflict, children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable and this must be recognized.

DPI noted that the Chair's proposed language seemed to have been taken from Article 22 (4) (5) and (6) of the Bangkok draft. DPI suggested the WG reexamine the BKK draft with a view to reinsert the missing paragraphs. There is a need to address the needs of parents in this context and the protection of children from being separated from their families, as dealt with in Article 9 of the CRC.

WBU suggested that the article's second or third paragraph should include the concept of "habilitation," which would entail giving a child with disability the possibility to handle their situation early in life, as opposed to rehabilitation, which implies regaining skills. The Coordinator enquired whether this is an accepted concept in international law and received an affirmative response.

WFD concurred with statements made by Ireland, Germany, LSN and WBU. And suggested referring to other articles in the CRC such as articles 5,13,15,17 and 21, specifying that these rights also apply to children with disabilities.

IAID noted that the CRC is the only convention on human rights to mention disability.

Thailand supported DPI's suggestion that the WG take Article 22 (7) and (8) of the BKK draft seriously because of the financial burden upon the families of PWD.

II stated that the language of Article 18 is too weak. The first 3 years of the child are crucial. Integrated early intervention may actually save money, because a child with disabilities who has received this care will not need as much assistance later in life. Serbia Montenegro concurred with statements made by Slovenia, Germany and Ireland. WBU pointed to Article 22 (3) of the Bangkok draft, recognizing citizenship and nationality rights for children with disabilities.

Germany agreed with Thailand on education and suggested alternative text to BKK Article 22 (8) on "access and participation to regular and special education services." Language recognising instead the "right to have access and participation to education services on an equal footing with others" would leave the debate about special or irregular education services to be addressed in the separate article on education.

India noted that in many developing countries the girl child with disabilities is at highest risk of neglect and exploitation, and this convention should protect her, even within the family system.

Thailand reiterated that any particular model of education services cannot take care of the whole problem, whether it be special or not; it preferred to avoid referring to "regular" education. This convention should not endorse any one model over another. Nationality is a sensitive issue especially in countries with refugee populations. Children with disabilities should be accorded the same rights as children without disabilities in this respect. Ireland recalled that Article 7 of the CRC already provides that all children have the right to acquire nationality. The issue of which nationality is a separate matter.

Disability Australia Limited (DAL) suggested that equal access to all forms of education be included.

RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC LIFE

Sierra Leone suggested including language to ensure that electoral rules and procedures take due account of the particular circumstances of all PWD. In Sierra Leone procedural constraints during the first election after the atrocities prohibited some people from voting. For instance, fingerprints were required, yet many voters did not have hands.

WFDB noted that most deaf-blind people do not get any information about the voting situation their countries. As such they do not have opportunity to make a choice or build an opinion. Voting is impossible for deaf-blind people and the more electronic the voting system more inaccessible it is. One barrier is that in many countries it is not possible to have another person in the voting booth. WFDB urged that the article include language on accessible voting mechanisms and well as the right of to form disability organizations and the right of these organizations to act politically. The latter is stipulated in the Standard Rules.

II noted that people with intellectual with disabilities are often refused the right to take part in political life particularly if they live in an institution.

DPI Africa recalled situation in South Africa where not all disabled people could vote in secret, especially blind people, because the ballet papers did not allow for that. Perhaps there is a need to include the right to secret ballot. WBU concurred, and proposed to replace the word "elect" wtih "secret voting rights." It is important to establish security around voting rights.

Ireland called for inclusion of language from Article 8 (c) and (d) of the European Union draft and questioned the approach of the Chair's Article19 (a) in particular the use of the word "guarantee". Ireland preferred to look at specific measures as it did with all the rights the WG was addressing. Furthermore, Article 25 of ICCPR, on voting and elections, is confined to citizens and this article should take that into account. Article 25 recognises a "right to vote" and "an opportunity to be elected"; it does not recognise a right to be elected and this should also be taken into consideration.

Canada likewisedrew attention to Article 8 (c) and (d) in EU text as the term "promote" is used which Canada preferred to "guarantee" used in the Chair's text given that states cannot guarantee success. Regarding activities of political parties, Canada cautioned not to be too prescriptive in terms of government action regarding these parties.

Japan expressed concerns over the meaning of the language in Article 19 (c) of the Chair's draft "participation of PWD and their organizations in all decision-making processes." Japan explored whether this provision gives extra rights to PWD. Japan suggested that the convention specify until what stage should PWDs should be involved.

Thailand stressed that the word "guarantee" is not too strong. If other people without disabilities have the right to participate, elect or be elected, than PWD should have equal rights in that sense. If there is any difficulties for PWD, the mechanism should be adjusted or even eliminated to restore or guarantee equality. Thailand has a secret voting method for blind people, probably due to the low-tech method of voting in Thailand. The Chair's draft omitted the part in BKK ?the right to form an association. Thailand pointed out that Article 19(3), though it mentions the organizations of PWD, it does not specifically endorse the right of PWD to establish their own organizations. Regarding the phrase "all decision-making processes," this should be contextualised so that disabled people have the same rights as non disabled people but particularly on the issues that affect their lives.

SAHRC proposed deleting the sentence between "based on sex" and "especially" in Article 19 as it is repetitious. Regarding 19 (b), the SAHRC proposed the language "to participate equally in the activities and administration of political parties" instead of the word "guarantee."

South Africa drew attention to Art 11 (a) of the Mexican text on page 100 of the Compilation as a means to facilitate the involvement of PWD in political life.

Ireland drew attention to Article 7 (a) of the EU draft regarding participation in decision-making by PWD. Given that there are areas of decision-making that are restricted to all people, the language of all decision-making processes is possibly too broad.

India supported the intervention initially made by Canada on the merits of word "promote" as opposed to "guarantee." IAID stressed that it is essential to include participation by PWD and their organizations both in decision making as well in consultation regarding issues of relevance to PWD.

Mexico suggested that Article 11 of the Mexican text might be a basis to specify the measures that apply to PWD in their capacity as citizens, which is obvious but not superfluous. The right to be elected should be included furthering Article 25 of ICCPR which grants that opportunity. Article 8 in the EU text is too limiting.

In relation to Article 19 of its draft text on page 109 of the Compilation, Venezuela emphasized the importance of the right to security and the right of PWD to engage in free association and form their own organizations. Venezuela proposed language that would enable PWD to exercise the right to vote with secret ballot.

Ireland explored whether "discrimination based on sex" alone should appear in the article, given that the ICCPR cites a large number of discriminations.

DPI supported the text in Paragraph (c) as essential to enabling PWD to exercise their right to vote. It noted that PWD are often ignored by politicians given the many obstacles to voting and political exercises.

RIGHT TO OWN AND ADMINISTER PROPERTY

Sweden questioned the advisability of including a paragraph on this issue, given that a paragraph already exists on equality before the law and legal capacity. The WG has addressed these issues at length. Furthermore, if the Convention clearly establishes that there is equality before the law and that PWD have full legal capacity, additional paragraphs that do not deal with the core issues of this matter may engender legal complications.

The Coordinator noted that discussion of Article 20 would be deferred until the thematic consultation examining materials on Articles 11 and 20 produced a proposal.

WBU remarked that blind people should have the right to sign their own documents.

II noted that Article 23 (3) entail a special form of discrimination as it assumes that all people with intellectual disabilities can not manage money.

ACCESSIBILITY

Mexico explored the possibility of reshaping this article by linking it with Article 22 on the right to mobility and Article 28 on the right to universal/inclusive design.

Regarding Article 21 (2), Ireland drew attention to Article 6 (d) and Article 8 (a) of the EU draft. Ireland preferred an approach identifying and eliminating obstacles, rather than talking about new rights

Regarding combining the three articles, Thailand noted that universal design and assistive technology do constitute accessibility and mobility. If the WG can develop language that is precise without confusion and that encapsulates all these issues, this is acceptable. Thailand suggested inserting the following language in Article 21 (1) of the Chair's draft after "national standards" ?" "Following existing internationally recognized accessibility standards where possible" It is important not to encourage many standards, as the goal is to have one universal standard.

WFD affirmed that this article could be divided in two parts?one dealing with buildings, roads and traffic and the other addressing communication which is only treated in Article 21 (f) at the moment. WFD regretted that the article did not mention interpreter services.

II flagged the problems experienced by people with intellectual disabilities in public buildings. As thy often lose their way, there have been efforts to simplify navigation of these buildings using color indicators and even music. II suggested adding the words "guidance through" in the first paragraph of Article 21.

Korea proposed including the issue of technology in the General Obligations of states so that it covers all aspects of life.

DAL asserted that the right to mobility is very specific and hoped to separate it from other issues and avoid creating new rights. DAL proposed addressing information, communication and accessibility issues under the Article on Freedom of Information and Expression.

WFDB asserted that it would be confusing to combine the articles, because mobility is not only a technical question, but also one of personal assistance. It is often said that the "best technical aid for a deaf-blind person is often a person-with ears and eyes." WFDB suggested including a sentence on traveling in the article on mobility.

Japan preferred dealing with the Articles 21 and 22 together.

WNUSP agreed with II and pointed out many people with a psycho-social disability would also benefit from accessible guidance in buildings. There is a dimension of accessibility that is about simplifying information about the environment. It would be useful to include language that is not strictly about the physical or informational or communicational environment. It might be about the social environment with respect to whether interactions are happening that are respectful and easy to navigate. Some work is being done, in countries like New Zealand, to flesh out the meaning of accessibility for people with psycho-social disabilities. WNUSP would like to flag this issue for work at the AHC and the WNUSP would like to present information on that at the AHC. WNUSP agreed with WFDB, that for people with psycho-social disabilities as well, personal assistance is more helpful than technology. Regarding mobility, people with psycho-social disability have difficulty traveling freely. There is a lot of discrimination in relation to immigration and citizenship, as well as travel, based on disability.

India affirmed that Articles Articles 21 and 28 may go together, but Article 22 right to mobility could be could be reworded to reflect technology, personal assistance devices etc and treated as a separate article.

Regarding reference to guidance by II, Jamaica explored whether accessibility by definition includes the elements that were outlined.

Ecuador refers to Article 22 (b) suggested referencing the need to eliminate tariff barriers on assistive devices.

Thailand noted that when addressing access to information and communications there is an overlap between Articles 15 and 21, yet when addressing access to the physical environment and transportation there is an overlap between Articles 21 and 22.

LSN clarified that accessibility is about the external environment - the removal of the barriers that are external to persons with disabilities. In contrast, the right to mobility is person-centered - focusing on the individual person's requirements to move in society. Removing the external barriers is not enough to ensure that persons with disabilities can move in society.

Korea concurred that treatment of accessibility needs to be separate from mobility.

China did not have difficulty with merging Articles 21 and 22. Columbia did not think it complicated to tackle both issues in same article.

Lebanon stressed that the trend toward privatization limited states' powers in the private domain to enact measures favorable to PWD such as making private buildings accessible and ensuring equal access to loans. In addition, Lebanon suggested moving paragraph 2 of Article 21 to the general obligations of states.

Thailand cautioned against combining mobility and accessibility.

Regarding the amalgamation of Articles 21 and 22, the Coordinator concluded that a distinction between these concepts should be retained.

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. They are also translated into Japanese (Japanese Society for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities (dinf-j@dinf.ne.jp). 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