Disability Negotiations Daily Summary

Volume 1,#8 August 7, 2002

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

Morning session

Commenced: 10:20
Closed: 12:29

The Chair, Luis Gallegos, circulated the Bureau's Draft Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, requesting that any comments be conveyed to the Bureau by 3:00pm the same day. The afternoon session was reconvened

Monitoring mechanisms

Presentations by two experts, the UN Special Rapporteur on Disability, Bengt Lindqvist, and Janet Lord, Esq. was followed by General Debate that included questions to the experts.

Bengt Lindqvist provided an historical background to the development of a convention, the role of the UN in the development of the disability movement, and the positioning of disability in the human rights context. Addressing the need for a convention, he acknowledged that while the Standard Rules have contributed to the establishment of new legislation and new national policies in a number of countries, for PWDs "the frightening mechanism of exclusion prevails." This is the case in both developed and developing countries, and although great steps have been made in recognizing disability as a human rights concern on paper, the practical implications remain to be implemented.

Mr. Lindqvist identified 3 reasons for proceeding with the development of a convention: 1) The existing 6 core treaties were drafted without any regard for disability, and a convention should should tailor the general contents of the main conventions to disability needs. 2) A special convention would give "status, authority and visibility to disability in the HRs area" in a way that could not be achieved through the Standard Rules or the general 6 core treaties. 3) A convention would be able to create a strong monitoring mechanism and provide greater opportunities to follow up on national policies and national compliance, while giving impetus to a real implementation process in keeping with the goal of full participation.

The priority now is to create opportunities to begin the drafting process, make opportunities for "wide participation," and find ways to allocate the necessary resources for this process.

Janet Lord, Esq. discussed the important role of existing treaty-monitoring mechanisms in promoting the human rights of PWDs. Just as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was not meant to be seen as a justification for other treaties to simply forget about women, a convention on the human rights of PWDs will be developed "in part because the other treaty monitoring bodies needed to have the application of the rights as they apply to [PWDs] clearly articulated." In large part "the existing mechanisms have not been sufficiently used or developed to provide on an ongoing and consistent basis comprehensive and effective monitoring of the human rights of people with disabilities."

Ms. Lord outlined the core elements of any monitoring body established by the convention 1) "a permanent body and its composition must include significant membership by PWDs." 2) The body must review periodic State reports on measures taken to implement the convention. 3) The body must be able to request from States additional relevant information pertaining to implementation. 4) The body must be able to make recommendations to States. 5) "Provide for participation in the monitoring process by relevant and competent specialized UN organs and disability organizations. 6) The body must be able to make General Comments. 7) The body should be able to "propose that special studies be undertaken on specific issues. 8) The body should be able to receive and act upon "communications from individuals and competent non-governmental organizations that allege violations of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. 9) The body should be able to receive and act upon inter-state communications. 10) The body should be "mandated to initiate a procedure of inquiry in cases where there is evidence of widespread and systematic abuse amounting to serious violations of the convention by a State.

Ms. Lord also identified the need for improved data gathering and the usefulness of examining the existing models of other treaty monitoring bodies (particularly those in the field of environmental protections). Above all, Ms. Lord stated that "whatever the ultimate form of the treaty monitoring and implementation mechanism, it is crucial that it be established on an equal footing with the other human rights treaty mechanisms."

Brazil questioned the Special Rapporteur on the best approach to addressing PWDs in developing countries. Lindqvist acknowledged that disability is a resource issue, but pointed out that not all forms of exclusion have a basis in a lack of resources. They are rooted in ignorance and a disbelief in potential positive outcomes. Much can be gained if these barriers can be overcome with simple measures. He referred to "systematic exclusion" of PWDs in national plans, using the example of child-based plans to illustrate this point. He noted that disability needs are often left out of development planning as well. The issue is one of discrimination and ignorance.

Sierra Leone appreciated Mr. Lindqvist's rationale for a convention given that that the Ad Hoc Committee was mandated to look into a convention and nothing else, and asked for directions for the General Assembly as it moves forward in this area. Lindqvist responded that when the "brilliant initiative" was made in the GA by Mexico, it seemed to take many other delegations by surprise. What could be achieved politically at the time was a resolution saying that an Ad Hoc Committee will "consider proposals." This was not a decision to elaborate a convention. The priority now is to give a clear signal to start the process of elaboration and remove any remaining hesitancy on this issue. There is a need to convince governments of affluent countries to contribute to this process.

The Islamic Republic of Iran explained that its co-sponsorship of the GA Resolution reflects its support of a convention dealing with diverse aspects of the rights and dignity of PWDs. However, this convention could take different forms and incorporate different principles. In the view of Iran, "this convention is more a question of the resources and development level." If we want to cover different rights we must address resources and different levels of development across the world. Governments with a minimum or medium level of development cannot be expected to cover all the rights in a convention, as those rights require resource allocations. Discrimination should and can be dealt with, but development cannot be dealt with on its own. There is a need to address the issue of rights-based approach, because of its resource implications.

Australia asked Mr. Lindqvist about the levels of participation of various states in the reporting processes under the current SRs. Lindqvist responded that there is no formalised reporting system for the Standard Rules. The purpose of the monitoring mechanism is to further the implementation of the Rules, assess the degree of implementation, and give advice to governments. The format of global questionnaires have been used to gather information in specific areas of implementation. These surveys have had fairly high response rates from states. The surveys have also been put to NGOs, and often the pictures described by the 2 groups were "quite different." Personal country visits are another, much less formalized, monitoring process. One observation from such visits is that very often the progress we make is reliant upon individual involvement, and this is a "vulnerable" situation.

The Representative from South Africa asked Mr. Lindqvist for any experiences he may have had with legislatures that provide guidelines on disability initiatives, and also national institutions and their use or lack of use of the Standard Rules and monitoring mechanisms. Lindqvist noted that he has often advised on legislative initiatives. National institutions are a relatively new development, but have the potential to be "a great asset and player in the future."

The Representative from Mexico, Francisco Cisneros Rivero, called for mechanisms that monitor implementation in terms of concrete measures taken and the challenges faced by states. Two possible organs that could take on this responsibility are a Conference of the Parties meeting every 3 years; and a meeting of experts called periodically to review reports, in a manner similar to the Landmine Ban Treaty. Mexico also recommended referring to elements of the Rights of the Child convention to create a committee of experts inclusive of PWDs that was permitted to receive reports. The relevant proposals are in Art.19-24 of the Mexican working paper that came out of the recent meeting of experts in Mexico.

Denmark, making a statement on behalf of the EU, recalled its position that "any legally binding instrument on the rights of persons with disabilities should be effective, enforceable and realistic." Any associated monitoring mechanism should "primarily aim at assisting States Parties in raising levels of understanding of the relevant obligations, to assist in the transfer of good practice and to play a useful role in ensuring effective implementation." UN obligations to "rationalize and streamline the human rights machinery in order to avoid duplication" should be taken into account. The involvement of PWDs in a monitoring mechanism would be "of utmost importance." With regard to the "exact tasks of any monitoring mechanism," the EU reserved its position "pending further and more detailed considerations and consultations."

South Africa noted that the success of an instrument will in part depend on the effectiveness of its monitoring capability which should occur at both national and international levels. A monitoring mechanism should have: 1) the capacity to accept individual and group complaints; 2) adequate resources; 3) the contribution of specialized agencies; 4) strong national human rights institutions and ombudsmans - noting the important role of parliaments; and 5) the participation of NGOs and NGOs of PWDs, possibly through the submission of shadow reports. Thematic days could get information out and raise awareness about the issues. The Special Rapporteur's role would be invaluable.

Australia called for a strengthening of existing monitoring and implementation mechanisms and, like Japan yesterday, the strengthening and streamlining of existing human rights monitoring mechanisms to prevent duplication. It supported the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on improving their response to PWDs by preparing general comments on disability. The starting point and primary focus now should be to gather information on mechanisms already in place at the national and international levels and assess how these mechanisms can be improved. Australia asked for the input of Ms. Lord in this regard.

Janet Lord responded that there are challenges associated with proposals for new monitoring mechanisms, such as the problems of obtaining state reports, adequate resources etc. Notwithstanding these challenges however a meaningful monitoring and implementation system for this treaty should be pursued. There are lessons to be drawn from newer techniques to decrease the burdens on states, such as the use of deadlines, and financial and technical assistance for states. No current monitoring mechanism has been able to generate the necessary understanding and awareness of disability as a human rights issue. There is therefore a need for a dedicated body that is "effective, efficient, and not an undue burden on States Parties."

Brian Burdekin of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) noted that the relationship between international monitoring mechanisms and national institutions should be further examined because it is the first time that a new human rights instrument has been created since the development of the national institutions. Many are well funded, and the reality of resources available to the UN and treaty monitoring bodies is a point at which international and national institutions and monitoring mechanisms "needs to come into focus." The Representative from Mexico, Gilbert Ricon Gallardo, supported Mr. Burdekin's suggestions.

Brazil stressed that avoiding duplication was also applicable in the area of implementation. The multi-track approach is best. Although the positive results for PWDs should be immediate, the individual situations of different countries should also be taken into account, and the convention should provide "clear guidance" in this respect.

Richard Light set forth 2 issues if concern to Disabled People's International (DPI) and 2 from the wider International Disability Caucus. Firstly, although a monitoring mechanism for a convention would be important, PWDs "must be mainstreamed into existing monitoring systems." Secondly, any monitoring mechanism should take into account , and seek to adequately protect, those PWDs who are subject to isolation through institutionalization and neglect.

The International Disability Caucus echoed the recommendations of Janet Lord that: 1) A permanent treaty-monitoring body should be established by the Convention, capable of receiving reports and requesting additional information from States and NGOs, and capable of issuing general comments, reviewing communications (from states, individuals and organizations), and investigating allegations of systematic abuse. 2) The treaty-monitoring body "must explicitly provide for significant membership by representatives of disabled people's organizations (DPOs)."

Kicki Nordstrom, president of the World Blind Union (WBU) speaking on behalf of the International Disability Alliance (IDA) endorsed the statements of Bengt Lindqvist and Janet Lord, and expressing appreciation for the support of Mexico in incorporating individual complaints mechanisms into its draft working paper. IDA would like, however, to also see the submission of complaints by groups. IDA also supported South Africa's suggestion of thematic days. Moreover, IDA fully supported the inclusion of PWDs into any treaty-monitoring body, and the use of PWDs as experts in the implementation and enforcement process.

Canada, indicated that accountability and reporting on progress are essential implementation elements, and announced that a first report on the issue of disability as addressed in federal programmes and services will be released in the next couple of months.

Tina Minkowitz spoke on behalf of Madre, drawing attention to the need to monitor the work of the UN as well, and highlighting the work done by Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) in this regard. She also emphasized that any monitoring process should take into account women and racial minorities, who are frequently subjected to multiple forms of discrimination.

Norway believed that any convention is no "better than its monitoring mechanism," and therefore it supports a multi-track approach to strengthen all the treaty monitoring mechanisms. It also requested Janet Lord to speak on the issue of individual complaints. Lord responded that individual and group complaints are a core component of any modern human rights treaty monitoring mechanism. The possibility of such complaints can be established in the convention itself or in separate protocols. Within the context of disability, communications are particularly important because of the invisibility of many PWDs and the lack of other forms of redress.

Afternoon session

Commenced: 16:13
Adjourned 16:20

The Chair announced that Mexico and the EU had requested informal consultations immediately after the last interventions. The informals would be closed to NGOs to discuss proposals related to the draft recommendations contained in the Draft Report of the Committee. Philippine will Chair.

Mexico informed the Committee that there have been focused discussions between the EU and Mexico on the text of the draft recommendations submitted by the EU. Mexico requested the EU to circulate its draft to the delegations.

Denmark thanked Mexico for its "positive remarks" and introduced its draft, dated August 7, 2002 of "Recommendations for an Ad Hoc Committee." The EU would forward the finalized recommendations to GA to formulate.

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.