音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: SKIP NAVI GOTO NAVI

Disability Negotiations Daily Summary

volume 1, #4
August 1, 2002

Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, 29 July - 9 August 2002 : NGO Daily Summaries :

A revised, "indicative" proposed Programme of Work was introduced by the Chair dated Aug 1, 2002. The matter of NGO participation was resolved following informal consultations held in closed session.

Morning session

Commenced: 10:40 AM
Recessed: noon

Procedural issues

Expressing concern over the"urgency" it perceived from other delegations, India asked that "due process" be followed to facilitate the drafting of an effective convention, giving time for communication with home capitals. This position was supported by the Czech Republic. Denmark, on behalf of the EU and associated countries, reiterated that organizational questions be settled prior to discussion of substantive issues. Chile indicated that it would be willing to settle preliminary procedural questions in order to move quickly to the discussion of substantive issues. This was echoed by Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Mexico. Surinam considered it important to move forward with a discussion of substantive issues (as set forth in a draft Programme of Work distributed by the Chair), in order to assure people with disabilities of the Committee's "honest" commitment to the protection of the rights of people with disabilities.

Content and timetable of Committee work

The Programme of Work proposed by the Chairperson yesterday at the end of the session was distributed in a revised form, dated August 1, 2002. The revisions were: removing the sub-topics specifying the types of rights to be discussed, and changing the reference to "Third Generation Rights" to "Other Rights". This partly but not entirely addressed the US request that any reference to such rights, which it does not recognize, be removed from an agenda.

India expressed concern that, whilst it understood the need for a "road map," and it appreciated the efforts of the Chair and Bureau to produce the Programme quickly, it had had insufficient time to adequately formulate its response. Furthermore, it considered the provision of such time necessary to permit "responsible decision-making." Regarding the allocation of time to consider "recommendations," India questioned whether a Committee recommendation to the General Assembly was the only alternative. In light of the need for any recommendation to be a "consensus document," it proposed that draft recommendations be considered starting from Tuesday. Canada sought to clarify where the "Four Points" raised by the EU would be considered in the Programme of Work, and also suggested that more time be allocated to the consideration of broader issues. Chile supported the proposed Programme of Work, finding it a good way to move forward to the discussion of substantive issues. The EU clarified that its intention in raising the "Four Points" in its Statement of July 31, was to have them included in the Programme of Work. It also wished to see the Committee consider conference documents, such as Mexico's "Principles for Drafting a New Treaty." The Representative from Cameroon highlighted that the Programme of Work did not expressly include the consideration of the draft convention submitted by Mexico, and questioned when that draft would be considered. Sierra Leone supported the proposed Programme of Work, and requested that the Committee be flexible in order to move forward with the Programme and in particular to facilitate the needs of smaller delegations. China called for the Programme to include consideration of social development as a "basis and a precondition," or else any discussion of implementation would be "empty talk." The Representative from Mexico, Luis Alfonso de Alba, suggested simplifying the framework to discuss civil and political rights in the first session; "other rights as topics" in the second session, and devoting two working meetings on Wednesday to monitoring mechanisms. The United States responded that it did not recognise the existence of human rights other than civil and political, and economical, social and cultural rights, and in order to avoid a lengthy debate on the question of the types of rights, it suggested changing the title and scope of the proposed discussion to one of "other topics." The Czech Republic aligned itself with the working document of the EU, A/AC.265/WP.2, and also supported the statement of India. It sought to clarify that it had been its understanding that its delegation had been sent to the Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Standard Rules and to discuss gaps where the implementation of these rules is not possible because they are not backed by other legally binding human rights instruments. Because the Mexican draft "is not a resolution" the Czech Republic did not come prepared to discuss such a draft, but it did not "exclude the possibility" of the Mexican draft forming the basis for any final text of, for example, an optional protocol. Lastly, it wished to know when and where the next round of meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee would be taking place, in order for its missions to prepare.

The Chairperson, announced that the Committee would, beginning today discuss the "Four Points" raised in the July 31st EU statement: (a) why a legally binding set of international rules should be adopted; (b) the type of legal instrument preferred; (c) how the instrument would relate to the Standard Rules and other existing human rights instruments; and (d) the kind of monitoring mechanism that would be appropriate for the convention.

Participation of experts/use of panels

Canada, Chile, Cameroon and the EU called for the involvement of experts to provide their advice to the Committee, provide introductory presentations prior to the discussion of specific topics and themes, and facilitate an interactive exchange of ideas.

NGO participation

The Federation of Russia considered the settlement of the question of modalities of participation of NGOs to be a priority, and requested that the Committee hold a closed meeting to facilitate the necessary deliberations on this issue. Chile said that "this matter of the NGOs" must be settled. The EU said that is would not recommend a discussion of the thematic issues without first settling the question of NGO participation. Sierra Leone stated that it was "astounded" that the issue of NGO participation had yet to be resolved at this stage of the process, given the extensive UN experience in and precedents for inclusion of, NGOs in various activities. It called for the question to be settled today so that no further time would be spent on the issue. The United States called for the suspension of the meeting to permit the delegates to meet informally in order to reach an agreement on NGO participation. Japan supported the proposal of the United States.

In response to the requests of states to meet informally in closed session and consider the draft proposal on NGO participation put forward by Mexico and the EU, the Chairperson agreed to suspend the meeting for an hour. Due to the number of NGOs and PWD in the Conference room, Brazil proposed that the delegates meet in alternative location. The meeting did not resume until the afternoon session.

Afternoon session

Commenced 3.20
Adjourned 4.45 pm

NGO Participation

The Chair announced that informal consultations held during the recess under leadership of Mexico and the EU had resulted in the adoption of "A Draft Proposal on the Modalities of the Participation of Accredited Nongovernmental Organizations in the Ad Hoc Committee" dated 1st August 2002. [In informal consultations, the EU said that the "accreditation" of NGOs without consultative status remains conditional through this week until the 7 day limit for states to object has been reached. Therefore their "participation" is likewise conditional through this period]. This proposal was adopted by consensus. A finalized official document has not yet been distributed.

Preparedness

Addressing state concerns about a lack of adequate information to prepare their positions, the Chair made available CD Roms of the complete study "The current use and future potential of United Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability" commissioned by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and authored by G. Quinn and T. Degener. Addressing state requests for access to expertise, the Chair made arrangements to give the floor to the two available experts - Gerard Quinn and Professor John Mathiasson - to answer questions.

Content and Timetable of Committee Work

The first two of the "Four Points" raised by the EU in its statement of July 31st were addressed. The Chair requested Mr. Gerard Quinn to begin the discussion who in turn deferred to the EU delegation, because the EU had prepared a statement on this issue. Mr. Quinn said that he would be happy to elaborate on the General Principles that was the outcome of the expert meeting sponsored by Mexico in which he participated.

General Debate of EU's "Four Points"

The EU provided several justifications for why there should be a legally binding instrument. 1. It "adds value to the corpus of human rights law by making it more directly and visibly relevant in the context of disability" thus putting "beyond doubt the core thesis….that disability is first and foremost a human rights issue". 2. A single composite thematic instrument could move forward the process of mainstreaming disability under the 6 core treaties. 3. The resulting "clarity as to state obligations" could help to focus the minds of States….and materially help them formulate appropriate national strategies." 4. The "relatively underdeveloped" relevance of disability in the 6 core human rights treaties would be improved.

The EU also addressed its second question regarding the kind of legal instruments that could be considered. As elaborated in its position paper [A/AC.265/WP.2] it put forward 5 options, asserting its preference for its first choice, a broader convention dealing with general principles.

Mexico suggested to the Chair that arrangements be made for Prof. Mathiason to speak in his personal capacity, as delegations could benefit from his expertise.

South Africa called on delegates to refrain from using inappropriate language in their references to PWD, noting also that some delegates are themselves PWD. It repeated its call for the Mexican draft to be considered as the most effective way to move forward. It commended Sweden for setting up funds to facilitate NGO participation, particularly NGOs from developing countries. Finally, it requested that, given evidently increased participation from both delegates and NGOs, due provisions be made to ensure access. The delegate from South Africa noted that as a PWD she could not get to her designated seat. She also pointed out that NGO area was inadequate because it could only be reached by climbing steps.

The US called for a suspension of normal rules of procedure to enable more discussion around the impending statement by experts and stakeholders in the room.

The Chair called on Prof. Mathiason who introduced himself in terms of his work for many years in the Division for the Advancement of Women and as an academic. Using the example of women's rights, he noted that following the adoption of the UDHR and subsequent covenants it was found that exercise and enjoyment of rights by particular groups were not enabled, even though the rights themselves were theoretically covered in existing instruments. Sometimes the 6 main human rights instruments are just not detailed enough to prevent abuse of human rights against specific groups of people. There is a need to find a way to express those policies, programmes, laws and actions that could and should eliminate barriers and prevent discrimination such groups. A second reason a convention was necessary was because of its legally binding nature.

The Chair announced that he would set aside the left side of podium for PWD, noting again that this was an exception.

Kicki Nordstrom of the World Blind Union and the International Disability Alliance pointed out that the disability community "have been calling for a treaty for many years. They have made many presentations to human rights committees" yet no actions have resulted from this. They have had the Standard Rules which for 10 years put the disability issue forward. They have yet to see a legally binding convention that will ensure the rights of the 600 million disabled people all over the world as equally human. Until this has been achieved, the disability movement will not stop its "tireless" pursuit for a convention.

The representative from Jamaica congratulated the Mexican delegation for all its work and endorsed the statements by Prof Mathiason. She referred to the Standard Rules and the MI principles as important documents put forth by the UN system. She affirmed the need for a legally binding special human rights convention that could act as a catalyst for promoting policies to protect the rights of PWD.

Chile emphasized the implications of having an instrument with binding force, stating that the rights of PWD were not specifically addressed in any other such instrument except Article 23 of the Rights of the Child convention. There is a need to deal in a mandatory way with the obligations stemming from existing human rights conventions. The delegate requested Prof Mathiason's opinion on the last option put forward by the EU in its working paper on the types of conventions that could be considered. What are the legal and practical implications of a free-standing protocol?

Mexico expressed its satisfaction that the atmosphere of the debate had improved and was moving forward. It endorsed the need for a binding instrument that dealt with rights beyond health and rehabilitation. Such an instrument cannot be a general / declaratory in nature. Given the depth of the problem, a "cultural change to put an end to exclusion and discrimination was needed.

Brian Burdekin of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights elaborated on the implications of an international legal instrument at the national level. In countries where treaties were self-executing, the practical reality of an international convention were meaningful. Where national laws did exist, the key link between disability and international human rights and human rights values was missing. He gave the example of a national ban on political advertising on radio and television, seen as generally desirable, but from the perspective of PWD had the effect of denying them information from the only sources they may have had access to. Often his obligations in the OHCHR to ensure that protections extended to people who fell into the "other status" category was not seen to be binding or was subject to dispute because these groups were not specifically mentioned. In his practical experience, he noted, if there is not a binding international instrument then there is not the same focus, awareness and practice at the government / legislative level.

The OHCHR also expressed their appreciation that invitations have been issued to national human rights institutions -- human rights commissioners and disability ombudsmen -- around the world who increasingly have the role of protecting the human rights of PWD.

Three NGOs dealing with the rights of persons with psychiatric disabilities and mental health - Support Coalition International (SCI), The World Federation of Mental Health and the World Network Psychiatric Users and Survivors (WNPUS) made statements rejecting the MI Principles mentioned during this session's debate. Celia Brown (SCI) stated that the they "reflect a paternalistic medical model approach." Tina Minkowitz (WNPUS) stated that they "are not acceptable… endorsing practices that are human rights abuses" like involuntary confinement and forced treatment. They called for a legally binding convention that would address their rights on the basis equality with all others.

Norway emphasized the importance it generally attaches to the need to understand how existing human rights instruments can be used to deal with full range of human rights issues. In this case however it believed that a new convention is required. While endorsing the effort of the EU in formulating its position paper, it questioned the paper's reference to "utopian" proposals, noting that these standards change depending on the circumstances - who is to decide what is "utopian?". Norway requested information from Prof. Mathiason about how and to what extent the situation for groups like women and children have been approved by adopting specialty standards.

Prof. Mathiason replied that while there has been no systematic study of evidence that putting legal requirements into the form of a convention have resulted in change, his experience with the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and its monitoring body demonstrates that as states began the process of reporting to the Committee they did change their policies and practices. He also pointed out that many countries that signed on to the Women's Convention did not realize at the time the full implications of what they had signed on to.

The US stated that "there is no doubt that all countries currently have the legal obligation to respect the rights of all persons, including the rights of PWD." It acknowledged that the practice was far below that standard. The US recommends a "a multi-pronged approach" to this situation. There is a need to mainstream disability rights into current treaty bodies. The new treaty should be one of several approaches and such a treaty should be narrowly focused on elaborating those rights that are not mentioned in existing instruments.

The Chair concluded what he said was a "fruitful" meeting by noting that as proposed the Committee had considered the first two questions from the EU's Four Points. In addition, aspects of the two additional questions been addressed in the process.


The Disability Negotiations Daily Summaries are published by the Landmine Survivors Network, a US based international organization with amputee support networks in six developing / mine affected countries. LSN staff and consultants contributing to these summaries include Zahabia Adamaly, MA (zahabia@landminesurvivors.org), Katherine Guernsey, JD (Kathy@landminesurvivors.org), and Janet E. Lord, LLB (editor) (janet@landminesurvivors.org). Any questions or concerns relating to the Summaries should be directed to Janet Lord.