Volume 3, #10
January 16, 2004

NThe Draft Convention (A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.4) incorporating all the articles previously discussed in the WG was circulated. The following additional articles were discussed today: Preamble, Definitions, Health and Rehabilitation, Monitoring, and International Cooperation. Draft text reflecting the outcome of these discussions will be attached to the Draft Convention document as Addenda. The Coordinator did not reopen substantive discussion on articles that were already in the Draft Convention document. The Coordinator read out paragraphs 9 and 10 for of the Draft Report of the Working Group to the Ad Hoc Committee (A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.5) to which the Draft Convention would be attached, calling on the delegates to bear this in mind as they "consider and reflect" on the Draft Convention text. The paragraphs highlighted the fact that the WG saw its mandate as being to "identify possible approaches" and "narrow down the options" taking into account all contributions submitted to it prior to its meeting, including those found in the Compilation. The WG was not tasked with being a drafting committee, nor was it mandated to negotiate a final text. Given this mandate the Coordinator cautioned delegates that it would not be possible for the outcome Draft Convention text to reflect all proposals that were made.

Morning Session

Commenced: 10:30 AM
Suspended: 11:05 AM
Reconvened: 11:36 AM
Adjourned: 1:04 PM

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS (cont).

Sierra Leone was not clear over the extensive nature of the document's footnote, which moreover seemed to contain draft elements as opposed to just commentary. The footnote needed to be redrafted to deal with the structural issues and more accurately reflect the level of consensus that was reached in the small group.

India did not support inclusion of the footnote but preferred that only paragraphs 1 and 2, which adequately reflect what is needed, be put forward to the AHC.

The Russian Federation believed that the document as drafted would mislead members of the AHC and asked that the reference to international monitoring be deleted, as it has not been discussed within the WG.

Thailand supported the actual text, but felt that the footnote should be revised to more accurately reflect the views of the WG, especially regarding claims to consensus and agreement among the group.

Ireland reflected on the mandate of the WG, to cut down on the options to be sent to the AHC so that it can have focused discussions. The trend of adding more and more footnotes is not helpful in this regard. Substance aside, the inclusion of the footnote is not appropriate to send to the AHC.

Lebanon noted that the first paragraph indicated that responsibility for implementation should be given to focal points within national governments rather than be mainstreamed. There is consensus that implementation should be mainstreamed and the text should be clarified: "States Parties shall designate a focal point within Governments for matters relating to the follow-up of implementation..." The national focal point's responsibility relates to follow-up of that implementation, not to the implementation itself.

Sierra Leone suggested that with Lebanon's proposed adjustment, the first two paragraphs could be forwarded to the AHC, but with only a simple footnote indicating that much discussion had taken place on various issues and that the AHC should consider monitoring in the context of work that is ongoing within the UN system to evaluate how monitoring and implementation are addressed generally.

The Coordinator noted that there seemed to be agreement on paragraphs 1 and 2, and noted Lebanon's suggestion. The concern seems to be about the level of detail in the footnotes.

Ireland supported the approach of Sierra Leone but said that the footnote should avoid giving the impression that the wording of the two paragraphs had been agreed upon, even if the concepts had gained some acceptance.

The Inter-American Institute on Disability (IID) was not satisfied with the proposal to include only two paragraphs on the important subject of monitoring. The footnote reflects views of different members and they should be forwarded to the AHC. Eliminating the footnote would reduce the basis of discussion.

The Coordinator agreed that consensus couldn't be reached on monitoring issues and if colleagues are able to resolve the problems among themselves during the lunch hour, then they can put forth the consensus.

Columbia agreed that nothing has been concluded definitively, and did not support deleting the footnote.

Ireland did not support the idea of further small group discussions at this point in the process. It is not possible to put all of the views of all delegations in footnotes.

Sierra Leone said that a decision had to be made regarding including the footnote. Sierra Leone offered to work with delegates to revise the footnote along the lines it had suggested earlier but the WG should make a decision now as to whether this should be attempted or not.

Landmine Survivors Network (LSN) noted that the footnote included a proposal to introduce models for monitoring. Would it be possible for NGOs to develop materials that present models for the AHC to consider?

The Coordinator affirmed that delegations have the right to develop and submit materials to the AHC and he anticipated that this would be done on many issues. The Coordinator stated that a revised footnote would be developed that reflects that discussion was not concluded on this issue, that members had differing views, and that some delegations supported many elements in the text while others did not.

PREAMBLE

The Coordinator referred to the text facilitated by Mexico on the Preamble (A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.24) for this discussion

Thailand suggested that "including communication and information technologies" be inserted after "communication" in paragraph (o).

Canada opposed reference to the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families in paragraph (d). There was general agreement that there would be reference to the 6 core human rights treaties. This particular treaty does not have the same status as the other 6 treaties.

Japan agreed that reference to the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families should be deleted. "And independence" should be added to paragraph (i). In paragraph (k), there should not be a distinction between those who have severe disabilities and those who do not. The Preamble, or a footnote, should mention that all PWD should enjoy the same degree of protection.

Sierra Leone opposed the phrase "some members" in the first sentence of footnote 1 because it was the dominant view that international cooperation should be referenced in the Preamble. International cooperation is the essence and the core of the UN and does not only refer to assistance. Members should refer to the Article 1(d) in the section on General Principles of the Mexican Proposal (page 24 of the Compilation) and paragraph (q) of the Preamble in the Bangkok Draft (page 16 of the Compilation). Sierra Leone proposed an additional paragraph on international cooperation after paragraph (m) in the Preamble, which says "and the imperative [or need] of strengthening international cooperation in this regard."

The Coordinator commented that international cooperation would be discussed later when the text facilitated by Mexico on this issue was available. The footnote reflects the difference in views of the WG on this issue. The WG should avoid any attempt to quantify the number of WG members taking a position in a footnote. It is not possible to create agreement in a footnote when there is none.

Mexico concurred with the Coordinator and suggested the footnote be read in conjunction with the discussion on international cooperation. In footnote 1, "the living conditions of children," which is taken from the CRC, should be changed to "the living conditions of PWD" to make it more applicable to the subject of the Convention. Also, the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families has now entered into force and has the same status as the other 6 human rights treaties and is relevant to PWD. This Convention also has a monitoring body so it should be on equal footing with the other conventions. A footnote on distinction between severe and non-severe disabilities is not necessary but can be included.

The World Federation of the DeafBlind (WFDB) said that because it is hard to measure what is a severe disability and it would be better to only reference multiple disabilities. Also, is "profound" the right term to be included in paragraph (p), though the meaning is understood?

China agreed that the footnote should reflect all opinions on international cooperation. China proposed that paragraph (b) and (d) be combined into one because it was not necessary to mention human rights instruments in 2 paragraphs. "And conventions" should be added after "Covenants" in paragraph (b) to cover the elements now listed in paragraph (d). "Recognizing" is clearer than "reaffirming" in paragraph (d).

Morocco affirmed the relevance of the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. International cooperation should be included in the Preamble as a separate paragraph.

Mali regretted that international cooperation was not referenced in the Preamble because members were working on the basis of the UN Charter, which furthers international cooperation.

Uganda supported Sierra Leone on the matter of international cooperation.

Ireland objected to referencing international cooperation in the Preamble and proposed a second sentence in the footnote: "Other members, however, considered that any such reference should be subject to final agreement." Merging paragraphs (b) and (d) would weaken the Preamble because one focuses on non-discrimination while the other reaffirms human rights treaties. Paragraph (e) should have a more active formulation, like in the Preamble of the EU Draft. The Preamble should also include reference to the diversity of PWD. Paragraph (k) should be broader because PWD, irrespective of the nature of their disabilities, face multiple discrimination. Paragraph (m) should also reflect the fact that disability is exacerbated by armed conflict.

Republic of Korea suggested that "independence" or "independent living" be added after "autonomy" in paragraph (i). Does the freedom to make one's own choices, replace "self-determination?" If this is the case, the term self-determination should be included in a footnote.

The Coordinator noted that the WG report will not limit what is discussed in the AHC and not everything had to be in a footnote.

Lebanon said that the Preamble should make reference to international cooperation with a footnote that says "some delegations objected to this reference"

Thailand supported Paragraph (q) in the Preamble of the Bangkok Draft. "Independence" should be included in paragraph (i), but not "independent living" because the term focuses on one movement.

The Coordinator responded that a footnote reflected the view of India on not including the term "independent living" in the Convention, because it could create a problem in the Asian context.

DEFINITIONS

The Coordinator referred members to the text facilitated by Mexico on definitions (A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.25) for this discussion.

Venezuela proposed that the Convention include a definition of "PWD" because they are the subject of the Convention. Footnote 5 states that some members opposed a definition on disability within this term, but the delegate "did not recall hearing views that there was no need to have a definition." If this is the case, the second part of the footnote should be deleted.

The Coordinator commented that a number of delegations thought it best not to define this term while others held the view expressed by Venezuela. Unless this has changed, the footnote needs to reflect all positions on the issue.

The Coordinator reminded members that the elements in this article will depend on the substance of the rest of the articles. Because the WG had not ultimately decided on what will go into all articles, which is the job of the AHC, it can only discuss this article in light of what we will put forth to the AHC.

Venezuela clarified that it did not propose the inclusion of a definition of "disability" in its previous intervention. Footnote 5 refers to disability but is linked to the term "PWD". While it is true that some members did not want to see disability defined, it did not recall any opposition to seeing disability defined within the term "persons with disabilities". Venezuela proposed the inclusion of a definition of PWD.

The Coordinator asked if it was possible to define is it possible to define PWD without defining disability.

Venezuela said that it was possible if you defined disability in general terms that would be acceptable to all languages and cultures. It is easier to define PWD than to try to define disability. The WHO was not able to generate one definition of disability, but there can be a universal understanding of PWD. They are the subject of the Convention and so it is necessary to define who they are.

The Coordinator noted that a definition would be useful if they were able to come up with one that would reach general agreement.

Venezuela referred to their draft text for a definition of PWD (page 35 of the compilation). The definition is not the sole definition but might be an appropriate basis for trying to define the term.

Ireland commented that defining PWD was not different than defining disability because it just adds "persons with." A definition of disability should not be included, but if it is included, a definition of PWD is not needed. It would be difficult to define what a person is. Also, what is the purpose of including a definition of language? The article should define words that are not understood in the Convention. The definition of language is limiting and unnecessary; there was not disagreement on whether or not to include the definition.

The Coordinator said the definition reflected the discussion on the distinction between Braille and sign language. Sign language is a language while Braille is not.

WFDB noted that "communication" and "language" were not definitions and that the reference to "finger Braille" should be changed to "tactile communication."

China supported inclusion of a definition of PWD because the Convention is about the protection of the rights of persons, specifically PWD.

The Coordinator noted that the AHC will thoroughly discuss definitions of disability and PWD.

Jamaica supported a definition on disability. If disability is defined, it would only be necessary to state "a person with disability is regarded as"....before the definition. There is a growing consensus that a definition of one of these terms is needed though there seems to be more support for a definition of disability.

Asia Pacific Disability Forum (formerly Disability Australia Ltd) noted that the merits and demerits of defining disability. The title of the Convention specifies the subject of the Convention. If the article elaborates on the term further, there would be two risks. It would either limit or widen the scope of the term. This question of inclusion is better left to the AHC. Another option is to have States come up with criteria for definitions or use existing ones, which would be a more flexible approach.

The World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) asked for clarification on the term "oral-aural" in the language definition. There are languages that are only spoken, while there are others that are just in written format today, such as Latin. A definition of sign language can also be provided because linguists have studied this issue. It will be difficult to define disability. For example, there are many types of deaf people. Some have intellectual disabilities or Cerebral Palsy as well. Some lose their hearing later in life while others are born deaf. It is a complex issue and the inclusion of a definition of the term will make the Convention too complicated.

South Africa suggested that it was sufficient to define terms in the chapeau of the article which discusses that term. This will guard against repetition. The article on definitions should contain definitions of terms that do not have separate articles covering that topic, such as communication, language, sign language, and disability and/or PWD.

Lebanon suggested the replacement of "health" for "classifications" in footnote 4, because the sentence refers to the WHO's ICF. Definitions and classifications are two different concepts and should not be mixed.

Morocco commented that it was hard to understand how one could negotiate, discuss, and prepare this Convention without defining PWD or disability.

The Coordinator concluded that members had a good discussion on this issue which would be discussed further in the AHC.

Afternoon Session

Commenced: 3:13pm
Recessed: 5:00pm
Reconvened: 5:15pm
Adjourned: 6:15pm

HEALTH AND REHABILITATION

Ireland made detailed remarks that covered some, but not all, of its concerns of this article, which it emphasized would need to be raised in the AHC. The delegate proposed to insert the words "without discrimination" at the end of the first sentence of the chapeau, so that it would read States Parties "recognize that all PWD have the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination". Sub-paragraph (a) providing PWD with the same range and standard of health and rehabilitation services as other citizens, and (b) providing disability specific health and rehabilitation services were collapsed into one. Including "counseling and support" in (e) among the services that states should provide required explanation because this was described as "groups." Language in (f) on "new knowledge and technologies" was changed so that it no longer implied that all technologies will benefit PWD. The wording in paragraph (i) should be changed to account for the fact that the code of ethics for some rehabilitation services are governed by religious bodies so the role of the government here should be qualified to ensure that "a code of medical ethics be put in place which promotes quality care". Regarding informed consent in (j), the wording should ensure "that medical information is supplied to PWD in a manner which enables them to make free and informed decisions." Regarding informed consent in (k) a "quick fix" to the disagreements presented there would be to qualify with the wording "in accordance with national law." The sentence would thus read the "ability to refuse treatment and not comply with forced admission to institutional facilities in accordance with national law." The same qualification could be applied to (l) on the obligation to "prevent unwanted medical and related interventions." The issues in (k), on the responsibility of professionals to inform PWD of their rights, are more appropriate for guiding public policy rather than as outlined as rights, like a "right to autonomy". (m) needs to be reconciled with the views of those delegations that are demanding the compilation of statistics and data.

Canada suggested several amendments to subaparas (j) and (k) both of which dealt with privacy and informed consent. Given that there has not been much time for discussion on informed consent, (j) should constitute a footnote and (k) should be deleted altogether. Language in (j) on privacy should be deleted as it is already covered within the article in (m). Stipulating "a right to be informed of a right to autonomy" might lead to confusion among those who are required to carry it out. With respect to (l), Canada reiterated that such a provision, dealing with unwanted medical interventions imposed on PWD, should be clarified by a footnote such as the one in the articles on torture and freedom from abuse, which stipulates that "some members also considered that forced medical intervention and forced institutionalization should be permitted in accordance with appropriate legal procedures and safeguards."

China objected to language contained in a footnote to the Article stipulating that rehabilitation "does not include medical care." In China, rehabilitation involves a medical component. Limiting the terms of rehabilitation, would hamper the government's work in providing services to PWD who are in real need. The delegate further noted that the conception and use of such medical care is another matter. China concurred that including both paragraphs (j) and (k) was not necessary. With respect to (e), the wording on protection against secondary disabilities is problematic, given that secondary disabilities are only part of the issue. In China over 30,000 children will become deaf due to misuse of medications. The government is obliged to prevent such cases. In the context of an international instrument, such as a program for PWD, governments are asked to take action in order to provide health care, including preventive measures.

South Africa concurred with Canada's comments on the redundancy of this article's coverage of issues of consent. Subpara (n), which promotes the involvement of PWD and their organizations in health and rehabilitation policy and services, should be included in the Draft Convention's article on Participation, or in the General Principles which already provides for the inclusion of PWD as equal citizens and participants in all aspects of life, as well as respect for difference. South Africa emphasized that involvement of PWD need not only be related to NGOs, but should also include government and statuary bodies.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) pointed out a contradiction in proposals to qualify subpara (k) so that the ability of PWD "to refuse treatment and to not comply with forced admission of institutional facilities" is made "subject to national law." In fact, states are expected to conform their national laws to the convention, rather than the reverse. There is a difference in terms of obligations to respect privacy in (j) and (m). Item (j) is specifically related to informed consent, that is, to the person concerned releasing their information. Item (m) is more general.

The Republic of Korea, noting the general evolution from a medical model to one based in human rights, expressed concern about the Article as a whole. Prevention, health and rehabilitation are core aspects of medical model. The Article on the table suggests that PWD are always sick and will seek rehabilitation for their whole lives.

Thailand asserted that item (g), addressing the development and training of health and rehabilitation professionals, should promote the training of PWD in this profession. In addition, the delegate expressed preference for the phrasing prevention of the "cost" of disability, rather than prevention of disability itself. Reference to secondary disabilities should be modified with the word cost. As per item (g), the Coordinator noted this is covered in the first part of the sub-paragraph.

Rehabilitation International (RI) urged members to consider two separate articles--one for health and one for rehabilitation. There is some confusion around these terms. Footnote 1 on habilitation and rehabilitation might lead to confusion about these terms as well ? these have been distinguished in papers that can be taken up in the AHC. Advancements in bio-medicine and genetics are not covered in the relevant text in (f) and language in this regard will be submitted to the Secretariat. The Coordinator noted that possibilities to clarify "habilitation and rehabilitation" in this text would be explored.

The World Blind Union noted that the issue of community-based rehabilitation (CBR)?crucial in the context of developing countries?was not included in this Article. In addition, the concept of habilitation was misunderstood in Footnote 1.

At the end of this session the Coordinator heard comments on the revised Article on Health and Rehabilitation found in A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.4/Add.4.

Ireland pointed out that its now footnoted suggested language adding "in accordance with national laws" to the end of the subpara on unwanted interventions was not a formal proposal and could be deleted if the Coordinator so wished. Canada suggested applying language from footnote 23 of CRP.3 so that it would read "some members considered that medical and related interventions and corrective surgeries should be permitted in accordance with appropriate legal procedures and safeguards" Canada requested this footnote, in order to be consistent, with the way in which this issue is dealt with in other parts of the rolling text. The Coordinator replied that footnote 10 would be replaced with language found elsewhere text.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

The inclusion of this issue in the latest draft of the Preamble was reversed, with a provision calling for international cooperation in the body of the Preamble and an accompanying footnote indicating the lack of consensus on whether this ought to be mentioned in the Draft Convention text at all. In addition, Mexico circulated the summary outcome of a thematic consultation it chaired on this issue reflecting all the views put forth and suggested including its text in the report as a footnote.

Sierra Leone objected to the inclusion of the summary as a footnote given that this issue is now already incorporated into the draft text via the Preamble. There are parallels that can be drawn between the diverging views expressed by the WG regarding inclusion of this issue and other equally controversial issues like self determination and armed conflict. The same rules should be followed with regard to the format by which these views are conveyed on to the AHC. Self determination is now included in the Preamble as "autonomy" and it has received no further coverage beyond that. Likewise, the role of armed conflict in exacerbating problems faced by PWD has not been addressed in any footnote to the text despite the fact that this issue faced the same controversy over inclusion. There was no need to elaborate on what international cooperation was about. This is an accepted principle based on Article 1 (3) of the UN Charter. The WG itself is an illustration of international cooperation. It would be "unacceptable" if the WG conveyed an impression that this issue is controversial.

The World Federation of the DeafBlind (WFDB) called for the international cooperation between disability organizations to also be addressed. The exchange of information and experience among PWD internationally helps to avoid "reinventing the wheel" when developing or contributing to disability organizations.

Ireland acknowledged the usefulness of the Mexican summary in understanding the various viewpoints that existed around this concept. With regard to the inclusion in the preamble, Ireland affirmed that the Coordinator had accurately gauged the relative strength of different views in the WG; there were more views for the inclusion of international cooperation in the Preamble than were opposed. With "reluctance," it would accept the approach outlined by the Coordinator. The quid pro quo for this flexibility is that the footnote against inclusion be retained. Ireland did not object to the idea of international cooperation per se; however, in the UN context, this term has often been code for developmental assistance. The delegate therefore expressed "grave reservations" about creating international obligations regarding developmental aid.

Jamaica supported the position of Sierra Leone and recalled its own position in the previous AHC that the convention would meaningless with only a rights-based perspective and no developmental approach. The EU has correctly stated that it has been a major donor, yet in this context it is not only about countries providing donations. There may even be situations where developed countries benefit from developing countries in terms of best practices. With respect to the issue of life insurance, the problem for PWD is not necessarily with local insures, but with re-insurers, who have adopted a policy that PWD are a high risk group. There is a need for this convention at an international level, where it is possible to remedy the problems affecting PWD throughout the world. International cooperation is a "critical arm" of the convention.

The Coordinator noted that the reference to international cooperation in the preamble would not be revised, and sought guidance from the WG as to how to incorporate the Mexican paper.

Landmine Survivors Network noted that a footnote to Article 1 of CRP.3, addressing international cooperation, had been deleted, and advocated that it be reinstated in full. In addition, the Mexican paper must be included in a footnote on international cooperation so that the AHC is made aware of all the views expressed at the thematic consultation.

South Africa asserted that the inclusion of international cooperation in the preamble be maintained, noting that the final decision is left with the AHC. The flexibility expressed by Ireland is welcome. The Coordinator reiterated that the preamble would not be revised again. The footnote will remain with the technical amendment suggested by Ireland. In fact, the more pertinent question at hand is how to address the Mexican summary.

The Inter-American Institute on Disability (IID) supported the inclusion of international cooperation in the Preamble. It is very clear that an overwhelming majority of delegations indicated the necessity to include this concept. This reflects the general direction of the UN on this issue. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) refers to international cooperation in the Preamble, Article 4, Article 17 (b) on publications and information dissemination, as well as Article 24 on the right to health and education.

Rehabilitation International suggested additional references for the footnote from the CRC, Article 23.4 and Article 28.3, and Rule 22 of the Standard Rules. A move forward on the issue of international cooperation was essential 15 years after the CRC, and for this reason a separate inclusion in this Convention was essential.

Sierra Leone reiterated that international cooperation was not an issue that should require explanation, it is not about "just aid" but also about South-South cooperation, the controversy around this issue is unfounded and therefore the Preambular footnote, which has no binding commitment, is unnecessary.

Canada deemed the Coordinator's proposal with regard to the footnote and the Preamble fair and practical and pointed out that it has not had any objections to the inclusion of international cooperation in this text. Including the Mexican summary as a footnote would be awkward, but a small paragraph could be added explaining that owing to lack of time the WG was not able to finalize a text on international cooperation. Because it would be useful for the AHC to be aware of the various views expressed, a copy of the paper prepared by Mexico could then be appended to the report.

Ireland agreed with Canada's suggestion regarding the Mexican draft summary.

Colombia supported the current inclusion of international cooperation in the Preamble, as well as Canada's suggestion regarding the Mexican summary.

The Asia-Pacific Disability Forum (APDF) (formerly Disability Australia Ltd) suggested that, in line with Canada's proposal, the Mexican text could be included at the end of the Draft Convention if a new heading such as "strategies for implementation" or "miscellaneous items" could be created. In this way the Mexican text could be included as an integral part of the main Convention document, as opposed to an addendum.

Venezuela concurred with Colombia.

Mexico noted that lack of time prevented the WG from going into this issue in an in depth way. Given its importance, Mexico concurred with the proposal by Canada, which allows for this issue to be examined at the AHC. The Coordinator concluded that he would proceed in this regard.

China and Sierra Leone sought explanations from the Coordinator with regard to the second half of the Preambular footnote. The Coordinator explained that in the draft preamble considered at the morning session, there were two alternative formats dealing with international cooperation. When the decision was made to include international cooperation in the body of the Preamble, it was necessary to choose one of these formulations. Mexico suggested the formulation that currently appears in item (i). To ensure that no views of the thematic consultation were excluded, the alternative format was included in the footnote.

European Disability Forum (EDF) noted LSN's observation that a previous version of the General Principles included a footnote on international cooperation. EDF enquired as to the basis for the deletion of this footnote, given that a footnote linked to a binding Article 1 is more relevant than one linked to a provision in the Preamble. The Coordinator responded that opening up discussion in this manner meant delving into redrafting. It was not a substantive decision to delete the footnote. This was probably done due to the inclusion of international cooperation in the Preamble.

DRAFT REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE

The Coordinator referred members to the draft report of the WG, contained in WG text A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.5CRP5. The draft report is a procedural document that stipulates who participated in the WG, the programme of work, the documents were before the WG, as well as language setting out the basis on which the group approached its work.

Regarding paragraph 9 of the report on working methods, Sierra Leone suggested inserting the phrase "in particular the Chair's draft" as the group worked from the Chair's draft. Canada disagreed, arguing that the Chair's text was used for procedural purposes for the order in which to tackle subjects. It would be inaccurate to say that the WG put emphasis on any one text, given that members drew on wording from every text. In this regard the WG followed precisely the instructions from the AHC. Ireland concurred with Canada.

WFDB, India, Ireland, and WBU pointed out technical edits to the Report.

MONITORING (cont)

The SAHRC asked if the Coordinator would accept comments on the recirculated draft text on monitoring. The Coordinator explained that this draft is now part of the draft convention and it would be problematic to reopen discussion on all parts of that text. He invited comment on particular issues.

SAHRC was generally satisfied with the text as presented. Footnote 1, however, stipulates that the "Article was not based on a preliminary discussion by the WG but on discussion by a smaller drafting group." As this is generally what happened, the representative was not sure as to the purpose of the footnote. Footnote 2 states that "the smaller drafting group did not reach agreement..." However it was the WG, which was not able to come to an agreement, and not necessarily the smaller thematic consultation. Furthermore, the SAHRC, having chaired the meeting, wished to note that there was general agreement, though not necessarily consensus, around linking national monitoring to international monitoring systems. The Coordinator suggested deleting the first sentence in footnote 1 and replacing "smaller drafting group" with "WG" in footnote 2.

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT AND DRAFT CONVENTION

The "Draft Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of PWD," as contained in CRP.4 and Addenda 1, 2, 4 and 5 was adopted, with the Mexican text on international cooperation to constitute an annex to the Draft Report. The Coordinator noted that "this is a document that represents compromises and the views of no one delegation ... we have fulfilled our mandate well."

Jamaica, Ireland, South Africa, India, Sierra Leone, Morocco, Korea, Japan, Canada, WNUSP, WFDB and Mexico expressed appreciation to the Coordinator for his guidance and the support of the New Zealand mission in this process.

DESA responded to questions from the IID stating that the report in all official languages of the UN will be available in nine weeks. Sometime next week, it will be circulated in electronic version, including in accessible formats.

India found the draft was "broadly acceptable" and a fair record of what has gone on in this WG. Sierra Leone affirmed that, for those searching for meaning of international cooperation, the WG is an example. WNUSP noted the mutual education between NGOs and states and that it had the opportunity to have its concerns heard. Morocco asked for translated versions of the document to facilitate its national consultations between now and May. WFDB thought it unfortunate that at the AHC, WFBD will have to sit in as an observer. Perhaps, that situation will change. The ideal of having people who are involved at the same level as national representatives has worked in WG. Mexico praised the work of the Office of the High Commissioner and DESA and expressed satisfaction with the way the WG entailed constructive participation without distinction between government or non-governmental experts.

The Coordinator affirmed that the WG involved a genuine dialogue between states and NGOs and it has been a great privilege for the New Zealand team. He further expressed thanks to the coordinators of the small consultative groups as well as LSN for their much-appreciated daily reports.

The Working Group 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 and Joelle Balfe (editors). The Summaries are posted on line by noon the following day at www.worldenable.net and www.rightsforall.org They are translated into Japanese by the 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