Volume 3,#1
January 5,2004

Morning Session

Commenced: 10:35am
Recessed: 1pm

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Don Mackay,the representative from New Zealand,was proposed by the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee (AHC),Ambassador Gallegos,to serve as Coordinator of the Working Group.Before ceding the floor to Mr.Mackay,the Chair called for the discourse to be conducted with an awareness of its "moral and ethical obligations" and the responsibility for NGOs to guide this process.

The Coordinator reiterated the points raised in his presentation to delegations on December 23,2003.This included the proposal to defer three sections of the Programme of Work,which he added would need to be approached with great flexibility.The Preamble was better left to the end as it would need to reflect the substance that was to follow.For the same reason discussing the definitions at this point were likely to be time consuming.The final clauses could be dealt with at a later date as this was a technical legal area that would not require the valuable time of experts on disabilities.He stressed that the mandate of the Working Group (WG) was not to negotiate a final text,but to present several options narrowed down from the wealth of material before them,that would then be the basis for negotiation by the AHC.He added that there were no quorum requirements for the Working Group.The mission of New Zealand would undertake to compile the proposals of the day and have them ready for dissemination the next day.The Agenda was adopted after an amendment to replace "recommendations" with "conclusions" in Item 5,as the latter sounded less formal and a more accurate reflection of what would be the outcome of the WG.

Ireland suggested a focus on "core matters" that elicit general agreement to be followed by the issues that have less consensus.It cautioned against getting into a detailed discussion about specific rights given that these are already set out in the Covenants and UDHR and there is a need to avoid redrafting or creating new rights that do not exist elsewhere.

Regarding the Coordinator's decision to defer discussion of the Final Clauses,Thailand expressed its concern that its proposal to translate the text into accessible formats would be included in this section and was important to people with disabilities.The Coordinator ensured that this issue would be addressed in this meeting.

The World Network Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) noted that NGOs come with experience in specific disability issues that may or may not represent the concerns of all PWD,and for this reason all of their expertise needs to be heard.The World Blind Union (WBU) highlighted the difficulties people with sensory disabilities face with following the proceedings given the continuing shifts from comments to draft language in the documentation.

OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The Coordinator introduced the Compilation,underlining that all texts,including those not included in it,have equal status.

Ireland referred to page 24 and 26 for its suggested text on general principles.PWD have the same rights as any other person and the exercise of these rights by them should be the purpose of the convention.It expressed its concern that other proposals in this section refer to the enjoyment of rights "set out in this Convention" or to the "rights of PWD".However in both cases this might imply that PWD have fewer rights.Ireland was pleased to see that there is "considerable agreement" on principles such as non-discrimination,equality of opportunity,autonomy,participation and inclusion,and hoped that these will be reflected in the text to be presented in the next day's meetings.

WNUSP noted that the principles set out in the Bangkok and Chair's draft went beyond naming a list of them to defining them.The representative called for diversity and the right to be different to be reflected here as well,as this is "core" to the rights of PWD,represents their lived experience,and they would like to see this vision reflected in the final text.

Japan affirmed the principles of non-discrimination,autonomy,equality of opportunity and participation as providing a good basis for discussion."The ultimate purpose of this Convention is the concept of normalization...we need to create an environment where PWD can live a normal life." With this in mind the Convention should promote a "self-sustained lifestyle" and full participation in economic,social and cultural life.In addition,special measures for affirmative action should not be regarded as discrimination.

Serbia Montenegro emphasized that PWD should and do enjoy all human rights,and also have all responsibilities as other citizens.Morocco stated its support for 2 objectives of the Convention - the equal enjoyment of rights and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against PWD.In addition the proposed text should include "the very important point" of promoting existing and new forms of international cooperation,to support national efforts,to the benefit of PWD.

Landmine Survivors Network proposed that the title of the Convention be simplified to "the Convention on the Rights of PWD".The Bangkok document provides a solid basis for work that can be further developed.Principles should be binding and linked to obligations making it possible to develop the Convention in the future.The principle of international cooperation as articulated in the New Zealand and Mexico documents as well as in environmental treaties should be included.

Columbia proposed that principles of equality and equal opportunity through sustainable development programs and inclusivity be included in the Convention.It stressed the necessity of preventive measures to reduce and eliminate conditions that cause disabilities.

Thailand reaffirmed its support for the Bangkok (BKK) and Chair's draft with the addition of one more objective and principle ? that of "survival" and "living in dignity".Thailand believes that self-determination and autonomy can only be realized with people who have already had self-determination.PWD "who cannot express their own self-determination" are still entitled to live in dignity.This should be an "add on principle" to the BKK draft.

China noted that all proposals on the table should be taken into account including those by Mexico,Venezuela,EU as well as China.We cannot make the final judgment so the focus at this stage should be an in-depth discussion of the "main elements" in this section of the treaty and the role that it would play in relation to the rest of the treaty.

Mexico asserted that the principles of discrimination,autonomy,participation and others mentioned during the discussion must be spelled out as objectives of the convention rather than as general principles,as the goal of this convention is to bring about participation of PWD and the elimination of discrimination.The Mexican,Venezuelan and China proposals reflect this point,whereas others tend towards a briefer statement of objectives and longer general principles.

Rehabilitation International affirmed that although PWD are at least notionally protected under international law,PWD do not essentially effectively enjoy these rights.RI put forward that the core purpose of the convention is to secure full and equal "effective" enjoyment of the full range of human rights on the basis of certain principles.The representative of RI noted that most of these principles are contained in the drafts on the table and that there is ample space for common ground between them on the basis of dignity,autonomy and self-determination,which for RI includes the right to independent living,as well as on the basis of basis of participation,inclusion,equality and non-discrimination.RI further observed that there is "ample common ground to express this."

Sweden underlined its view,which is well-reflected in the EU draft,that PWD should be able to fully enjoy all human rights.Sweden specified that this does not to imply that PWD have fewer rights or that PWD have any more rights than other persons.The EU proposal,Sweden noted,does not contain a long enumeration of human rights,but rather concentrates on providing guidance to states regarding the measures to be taken to ensure that PWD do enjoy their human rights.Sweden conceded that this is due,in part,to its view that interpreting existing rights is dangerous as the result may be substandard rights for PWD.Sweden observed that several delegations had expressed support for adding the idea of discrimination to that of the full enjoyment all human rights.However,Sweden's view is that "discrimination" is already included in the idea of full enjoyment of human rights.Sweden asserted that the discrimination issue at hand,along the lines of conventions such as CEDAW and CERD,is that there should be no discrimination in terms of enjoyment of human rights.Sweden noted the close linkage between the idea of discrimination and the full enjoyment of human rights.In addition,Sweden pointed to direct references by Working Group members to the right to be different as well as references to the Bangkok draft,and asserted that such a human right does not exist.Sweden pointed to the EU draft proposal's treatment of the issue of diversity among PWD and noted that this diversity should be taken into account when applying different measures.Regarding the issue of preventive measures,Sweden underlined that its delegation,as well as the EU as a whole,believes that this Convention should not deal with all issues related PWD as there are numerous other human rights foras where these issues are dealt with.In Sweden's view the convention should address the relationship between PWD and their respective governments and should therefore deal with rights of people who are already disabled and not with potential PWD.

Regarding objectives and general principles section of the convention,Canada advocated for a succinct and clear message,utilizing concepts for which there is general agreement.Canada underlined that the EU proposal illustrates this objective.Canada explored the possibility of referencing existing human rights instruments as a way to accommodate and reinforce the important principle that PWD are entitled to those rights,without enumerating in a list what rights those are for fear of excluding some right.In addition Canada cautioned against states using concepts that they were not necessarily familiar with and noted that "self-determination has a special meaning in international law and therefore it is sufficient to refer to "autonomy." Regarding the right to be different,Canada noted that the principle of diversity is a concept that is perhaps more wieldy in the discussion.

The Republic of Korea asserted that PWD are fully entitled to all rights,as with non-disabled persons,and should enjoy all the rights guaranteed in the international conventions on equal and non-discriminatory terms.Korea offered that ultimate realization of those rights is for the disabled community to "be able fully realize their potential" and based upon this realization of potential be able to fully participate in all aspects of society.Korea determined,after having studied the existing proposals,that there was ample basis of commonality in order to work towards a convention that will serve those purposes.Korea noted that there are common elements running through all the texts and expressed the need for the Working Group to weed through the proposals on the table and find the commonalities.Korea underscored RI's point that there was already ample basis for the group to work towards those commonalities.

India expressed its agreement with the objects of the Chair's draft proposal,but also drew attention to its own proposal."Recognizing the difference in the level of development and resources available it appears that international cooperation and sharing of resources will be vital for the success of the convention." India proposed that this idea be included in the objects of the convention,particularly the need to respect "intra-country" and "inter-country" resource variations.India noted that this would allow for progressive realization of rights with reasonable accommodation for PWD.

The World Blind Union reiterated the difficult nature of the working method of the group for people with sensory disabilities.She suggested the group first address topics around which there was much agreement,which might facilitate later discussions on more difficult topics.She raised the issue of whether the principle of prevention should be in the convention.The WBU noted that there are rights in many other conventions that should cover PWD,although there are rights that may have another interpretation or slightly different meaning for PWD.The representative of WBU underlined the link between the threat to the lives of PWD in many countries and the right to life.WBU called for this right to be included in the document.Pointing to the right to rehabilitation,which appears in the CRC,this right could be applied to all PWD.There was agreement with Sweden that the Working Group needs to focus on government actions in relation to PWD and noted that this focus might be able to ring in the discussion.

The Coordinator noted that there was much overlap between these issues and emphasized that the issues not in the general principles may be taken up in the preamble.

Japan asserted that it would like to include the principle of "full participation" of PWD in the text as this should be the basis of their activity.Japan noted that this language is included in the Indian and EU texts.Japan offered the notion that the convention should achieve a "barrier-free society" and noted that this phrase appears in the Indian text.Japan then cited the issue of the role of the convention in relation to existing human rights instruments stating that the human rights mentioned there should also be enjoyed by PWD,and that this position should be articulated in the preamble.Japan further asserted that,in order to avoid duplication with existing human rights instruments,those rights directly related to PWD should be in the substantive portion of the Convention.

The World Federation of the Deaf asserted that one reason for a convention is to ensure that the human rights of PWD be carried out in practice.At the moment governments do not ensure that the human rights of PWD are carried out on equal basis.PWD have varied experiences in their disabilities and in their needs,and therefore there are many possible solutions.WFP asserted that this convention must be such that governments will modify the environment in order that PWD will be able to enjoy their human rights and be full citizens.WFD observed that this convention will probably have a section on specific rights containing guidance to governments on how to carry out the human rights of different disability groups-people of differing ages and also taking into account the gender aspect.WFD then questioned the affirmation that the right to difference is not a right and expressed its hope that this convention somehow recognize differences in PWD.WFD supported the comments on prevention made by the WBU,and noted that in it's view the disability issue and prevention are linked.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry stated that every human being is entitled to self-determination and emphasized that choice is a fundamental human activity.The WNUSP asserted that autonomy and self-determination,in the sense of the right to make our own decisions,has to be both a principle and a right recognized in this convention.Regarding the way in which the rights in the convention relate to existing human rights law,the WNUSP reiterated that PWD benefit in theory from all human rights and that the problem originates from the exclusion of PWD from these rights through legal,societal and attitudinal barriers as well as physical and informational barriers.The WNUSP lent its support to the phrase "barrier free society" adding that that attitudes and laws can constitute barriers.The WNUSP affirmed that the convention should not be below existing norms and asserted the need to recognize that human rights disability law is in a state of flux and that certain emerging laws need to be supported in this convention.WNUSP specified that the convention should be "informed by our leadership and our direction." The WNUSP went on to stress the need to look at possible reinterpretation and application of human rights law,especially where the law has not incorporated a real non-discriminatory and inclusive PWD perspective.Regarding the principles portion of the convention,WNUSP asserted that self-determination,in whatever form,needs to be included.The representative emphasized that the principle of diversity and the right to be different also needs to be included,and asserted that PWD need to be able to say that " we have the right to be who we are and not be excluded." WNUSP offered its support for the principle of international cooperation as way guarantee that PWD in all parts of world fully enjoy all human rights.

Ireland looked forward to India's draft as it needed to be taken into account.Regarding comments by India and others on the need to take into account international cooperation,Ireland noted that the EU text did not include this term.The representative underlined that this was an express decision.Ireland stressed the importance of keeping in mind the goal of the treaty,which is the full and equal enjoyment by PWD of all their human rights.Ireland would therefore be concerned about adding an "additionality" or "conditionality," for example Ireland did not believe that non-discrimination or autonomy should be contingent on the receipt or otherwise of national cooperation.In Ireland's view,international cooperation is dealt with in ICESCR as one of the means of achieving these rights.Ireland asserted the convention should deal with people with existing disabilities and not delve into the issue of prevention.Ireland agreed with Canada that self-determination has a special meaning and it would be confusing to use the word in another context.

Sierra Leone asserted that the section on principles should be separated from the objectives.Sierra Leone suggested that the general principles be succinct and refer not just to all rights but to "specific rights." Sierra Leone recommended that among the objectives should be some reference to international cooperation and development as one cannot enjoy rights if there are no means to make this possible.In addition,Sierra Leone specified that if international cooperation is not in the general principles it should be in the objectives,which is why Sierra Leone suggested that the principles and the objectives be two separate sections.

Germany observed a general consensus in the Working Group on various principles.These included the right of PWD to the full enjoyment of human rights on equal footing,the principle of autonomy and non-discrimination,participation and inclusion,and the principle of equality.Germany asserted that the Working Group needs to go beyond what the UN has done on human rights for PWD,such as the World Programme of Action and the Standard Rules.Germany specified that the issue of prevention would be included in a convention on disability and that this convention is not on disability but on PWD.Germany underscored the difficult issue of the right to be different and conceded that it was not a human right when looking at the core human rights treaties but indicated that it is mentioned in the UNESCO declaration on racism.Germany affirmed that since this text sees disability as not only a medical issue but also a social construct,like race or gender,the Working Group might consider including this right.Germany proposed,noting that as the mandate of the Working Group is not to negotiate but to "collect good ideas",that the right to be different appear in draft text for the AHC to decide whether or not it should be in the objectives.

Rehabilitation International concurred with Germany on why the concept of prevention should not be included,yet underscored that this does not mean that rehabilitation should not be included as a tool for freedom and independent living.RI expressed concern over the mention of progressive achievement within the principles section,as if included in this section the concept might be seen to apply to civil and political rights,thereby weakening existing norms.RI believes that "progressive achievement" should be included in the section on programmatic rights of a social and economic character,but not in the general section on principles.

Venezuela urged that the group clarify elements of the first article on the nature of the convention.Venezuela noted its proposal is very similar to the Chinese draft except that it does not use the five domains that the Venezuelan proposal does.Venezuela asked the Chinese delegation whether it would be possible to include in its proposal the different spheres that Venezuela listed when referring to social life,non-discrimination and full participation.

DPI affirmed that the time has come for a thematic convention to protect the rights of PWD.DPI stressed the need for a disability-specific convention,as the monitoring process of the seven human rights conventions have greatly marginalized PWD.In addition,DPI noted that many UN human rights instruments,such as the Millennium Goals,don't specifically mention disability.DPI recalled that at its 6th World Assembly in Japan in 2002 those assembled declared the need for a convention with the full range of civil,political,economic,cultural and social rights.DPI also stressed the need for a strong monitoring mechanism.DPI raised the difficulty of deciding not only what rights apply but how they should apply.DPI asserted that a disabilities convention must use plain structure and language to assure understanding especially by PWD.DPI asserted that the convention must be clear in "equality,dignity and access."

Inclusion International (II) spoke for people often labeled with intellectual disabilities.Inclusion International affirmed that nobody,irrespective of his/her disability should be excluded from human rights.II asserted that citizenship should be for everybody and this should mentioned in the preamble.II also noted that persons with intellectual disabilities often belong to the poorest of poor,therefore II concluded that international cooperation should be cited and that the "poverty problem" should not be excluded.In addition II noted that in some countries prevention has bioethical dimensions,which should be discussed

Disability Australia Limited made the observation that more than 50% of NGOs and member states interventions favored a treaty of a holistic nature?meaning a treaty that elaborates the full range of rights including economic social and cultural rights.One of the clear purposes of the discussion,DAL noted,has already been elaborated on by the member states and other stakeholders.DAL affirmed that the convention should provide authoritative interpretation of the rights of PWD.Regarding the danger of elaborating certain rights and leaving out others,DAL noted that the risk of undermining certain rights is worth taking because people will not achieve their rights if they are not elaborated.DAL further asserted that the objective should be more elaborate than a mere statement that PWD should have equal and effective enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms.

Slovenia reiterated its support for a human rights oriented text and noted that during the discussion many areas of common agreements had already been identified.Slovenia asserted that some concepts,such as international cooperation,are elaborated in existing international instruments.Slovenia proposed a short and concise statement for this principles/objectives part of the convention with a safeguard clause,such as that for Art 3 of the Chair's draft on p.27 of the compilation,to ensure that interpretation of rights of PWD should not be less generous.

Russia stated its position that this convention must focus on the rights of PWD and focus on the particularities of those rights.Russia asserted that it must not duplicate existing instruments.Russia urged group members not to forget that PWD are expecting a realistic document and that the effectiveness of the convention will depend on how specific it is.Russia offered as elements for the major principles and objectives -defining at national level liability with respect to action or inaction -establishing realistic conditions for rehabilitation of PW D -Support for socio-economic activities of PWD to encourage them to work -deepening society's understanding of PWD.

Inter-American Institute on Disability noted progression in the discussion in the agreement on distinguishing the principles and objectives.The Institute observed that there is agreement on the importance of emphasizing full and total participation which must be in the principles.The relationship between poverty and disability was highlighted as one causes the other and that PWD in poor countries continue to be excluded from development in the context of public policy and government programs.Historically,international bodies have not taken this exclusion into account.The Institute stated the importance of including this international cooperation in the objectives portion.

World Federation of the Deaf stressed that the name of the convention must reflect its content and stated that the suggestion of "Convention on rights of PWD" was an acceptable title.WFD stated its hope that the process of the Working Group not be too long.Noting the agreement of the Working Group not to make "recommendations," the WFD indicated that this might mean that the convention process will be prolonged.Referring to comments made by II,WFD pointed out that while in some countries legislation is behind the technical advances,some of these advances infringe on the rights of PWD.

Thailand raised the issue of the to right to be different.Thailand asserted that the right to be different is specific to disability issues and further noted that diversity as such is nothing if not strengthened by the right to be different.

Lebanon stated that the Working Group risked spending much time on discussion of the principles without reaching a final agreement and suggested coming back to this discussion after addressing specific rights.

China noted that in its draft proposal,it prescribes eliminating all forms of discrimination of PWD.As this language is similar to that of CEDAW,China affirmed that the group does not need make a list thereby running the risk of leaving something out.Regarding the question of international cooperation,raised by India and other delegations,China noted that PWD have specific circumstances--social and other.China reiterated the relationship poverty and disability and concluded that strengthening international cooperation would have positive significance for the goals of convention.

Landmine Survivors Network expressed agreement with China that the Working Group was not in a negotiating posture.LSN noted that international cooperation is not a new principle and should be included as a principle in this convention.LSN suggested putting the concept in the objectives portion and the obligation for international cooperation be in a general framework related to specific obligations.

Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3:08 PM
Adjourned: 6:08 PM

OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES (cont)

South Africa asked for closer scrutiny of comments made at the African regional consultations that were held in South Africa in 2003 with regard to the aim of the WG being to ensure an inclusive document that includes the principles of equality and non-discrimination.It emphasized the primary importance of regional and international cooperation.

New Zealand qualified its previous statement and said that the opening statement should be simple and to the point so that no one can overlook the objective of the Convention,such as is presented in Article I of the EU Draft.The Convention should reinforce rights of PWD as ones that all humans have.He said that prevention issues should not be mentioned because it could send conflicting messages,that is,that disability is something that is not wanted,and that PWD themselves are not valued.The body of the Convention should then address how to ensure that existing human rights have an effect on PWD.

Canada offered some alternatives to some of the considerations already put forth on the concepts of self-determination and the right to be different.The concept of self-determination should be addressed as PWD having autonomy and the right to independent living,which includes the right to make decisions.The delegate expressed concern that including a right to be different would be creating a new right and that inclusion of the principle about international cooperation in this part of the draft could change objective of convention and narrow the possibility of states being party to this Convention and suggested it be addressed in the Preamble.He concurred with other delegations who said that prevention should not be an element in this part of the draft as its focus is those who have a disability.He asked for attention to Article III New Zealand text of the Universal Declaration,which would be appropriate for the Preamble.

The Coordinator cautioned against becoming embroiled in discussions on right to life and proposed the WG find way around it instead of resolving it.

The World Blind Union addressed the need for issues of discrimination and right to life to be discussed in depth because they are issues of concern to PWD.She referenced CEDAW's approach to discrimination and indicated that this could be an option.Existing rights could be reworded but that it might not be possible in all cases.She indicated that this section should address discrimination using positive and progressive language.There is also a need,she said,to find appropriate wording to address full participation,dignity,and diversity.She also highlighted that in some parts of the world,PWD do not have the right to full citizenship; this right should go to all and not some.She concurred with Landmine Survivors Network and the World Federation of the Deaf regarding the name of the Convention,which could be abbreviated more easily,and suggested that the current title could be used as the opening sentence of the Preamble.

Serbia and Montenegro stated that the objective of Convention should be the enjoyment of rights for PWD and allow for their participation in society in full and equal way.He called for word choice regarding self-determination to be examined further and suggested that the concept of international cooperation be included in the Preamble or opening lines instead of this section.Inclusion of prevention should be avoided,he said because this is a medical approach to disability and not a social one and the Convention is a HR approach to disability issues.

The Coordinator highlighted the wide range of agreement amongst those who had spoken with regard to the object and purpose of the Convention,that is,that PWD should enjoy full range of fundamental rights and freedoms,irrespective of nature or cause of disability.He also highlighted where there was disagreement with regard to the separation of principles and objectives,whether to include international cooperation and prevention,as well as inclusion of the right to self-determination,right to life,and the right to be different.He proposed that small open-ended group referenced earlier come up with language and come back tomorrow with a draft,that is not overly elaborate for further discussion.The WG did not object so he indicated that the WG would move on to a focused discussion on the obligations of state parties (page 44-58 of the Compendium).

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS

Ireland asked for guidance on how to look at some of the draft proposals under the general obligations heading due to the differing structures of each draft,particularly the EU version,and suggested that proposals dealing with issues such as monitoring should be considered in a much later stage.

The Coordinator concurred with the Ireland's point on overlap and differing structures of the proposals and asked for flexibility in approaching this area.He said that discussion of domestic monitoring fit in at this point but discussion of international monitoring should come at a later stage.

Disability Australia Limited suggested that the small drafting group compress the EU and Bangkok drafts so that the WG could proceed faster,as both offered interesting views on discrimination.

Mexico drew attention to Article 3 of Mexican draft for text on the general obligations of states and indicated that Article 18 should be in a separate part of the text entitled "International Cooperation in the Convention." Mexico indicated that the Mexican (Article IV) and EU texts coincide with regard to positive action/ compensatory measures and asked it this article should go in this part of the draft or in another part.

Japan supported the structure of the convention as proposed by the Coordinator in the program of work.He listed two elements of the obligations of the states in the Convention: condemning discrimination against PWD,and agreeing to a policy to pursue the elimination of discrimination.He proposed that the WG draw language on discrimination from Article 2 of the CEDAW convention in this regard.Japan also called for the inclusion of an article that would discuss the guaranteed legal and administrative measures available to PWD if in fact their HR were infringed upon or violated.

Sweden suggested that the whole Convention is a statement of state obligations and intervened that it did not agree with Japan's statement on condemnation as the Convention should "concentrate on actual action" and not address the issue in a negative way.It concurred with Ireland on the relevance of discussing monitoring at a national level and pointed out that the UN monitoring mechanisms are limited.It surmised that collection of statistics and data on PWD was not a right and expressed hesitancy on whether the inclusion of this element fit in the Convention,as history has shown the danger of "registering" race etc.in central databases.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry pointed out that the Chair and Bangkok drafts took a more legal obligations approach while the Mexican and Chinese drafts included more programmatic elements for governments to adopt to promote the rights of PWD,such as census taking.It also emphasized the importance of a strong obligation,reinforcing,respecting,recognizing legal equality,and full participation of PWD in international monitoring and national disability decisions,like Venezuela pointed out in their document.She said that the Bangkok and Chair drafts had good national implementation discussion,particularly with regard to participation of PWD.She asked for the Coordinator to point out where the elimination of stereotyping in the EU Draft is located in the compilation text.

The Coordinator said that the EU relevant provisions were found on page 61 and said that it was inevitable to have these difficulties when working with more than one text.He also indicated that he was informed prior to the meeting that it was unlikely that there would be agreement on one text.

Colombia agreed on the importance of states to have legal,judicial,and administrative obligations and the need to include principles of equality and non- discrimination in national law and courts.It said states should be obligated to ensure autonomy and independence,and full participation and integration in social,political,economic life for PWD,and should promote the role of organizations of PWD in evaluating the establishment of programs and policies.It concurred with previous statements on the need to gather data on disability in the census,especially with regard to heath and education.

Morocco said that the majority of the proposals could be integrated into one text.

Serbia and Montenegro said it was encouraged by some common denominators in the proposals on non-discrimination and called for the inclusion of the concept of concrete actions to deal with the issue by states,such as a provision for legal remedies for those who are discriminated against.

China called for a paragraph on the general obligation of states and said that three major groups of elements on this are reflected in existing proposals: Obligation of legislation; obligation to take specific actions and administrative measures,and obligation to undertake judicial measures.The delegate pointed out that these obligations could be found in Article 3 of the Chinese text and should be put into the draft text.

Rehabilitation International highlighted the six common denominators in the text: 1-3 being juridical; 4 and 5 being policy-oriented; and 6 being the educational responsibility of states.He called for the mainstreaming of disability in policy decisions,and the inclusion of PWD in its conception,implementation,design,and review.He indicated the obligation of states to nurture public opinion on disability,including with regard to stereotypes.

The Republic of Korea indicated that the compilation of disability data could help in improving quality of life,but could conflict with the privacy of PWD.it surmised that the collection may be useful a few decades from now and there should be a right to amend this element later with regard to refusal of collection of data by PWD.

Lebanon concurred with Ireland's statements and pointed out the obligation of states to prepare their budgets to allow for disability policy.

Ireland highlighted the wide agreement among members on many elements to be included under general obligations of states.He called for Article 5A of the EU proposal (page 61 of the compilation) to be reflected in final draft.It asked for attention to the Bangkok draft's Article 5,on remedies for violations.

Canada expressed contentment with the content of the Chair and Bangkok drafts because it set out means to implement obligations.It suggested a provision of special measures,such as in Article 4 of the EU draft and highlighted the need to include the progressive realization of rights,as recognized in the Covenant on Economic,Social,and Cultural Rights (Article 2).

The World Federation of the Deaf highlighted the need for both general obligations and specific measures regarding state obligations.It affirmed the EU Draft Article 4 because 80% of PWD live in developing countries and we need to see their needs are met and formulate a way so that the governments can undertake responsibility in this regard.

Inclusion International wanted a statement that the government will allow a PWD to live a full life and pointed out that there is a need to allow for everyone to understand the text so they can exercise this right,which is an important part for PWD.it called for a HR infrastructure to allow the intellectually disabled to exercise this.

Disability Australia repeated Canada's view and highlighted the sixth element that India stated (progressive realization of economic,social,cultural rights) which is outlined in Article 4 of Bangkok draft.

LSN emphasised the participation of PWD as both an important principle and objective in the Convention.The delegate noted that participation should not end when states move to implement provisions at the national level.LSN supported paragraph 28 of the New Zealand draft as it explicitly recognizes those general obligations provisions calling for the participation PWD in the process of developing the legislative,administrative and other measures needed to implement the Convention at the national level.

India highlighted the legislative obligations of affirmative action of states with regard to employment,social security,and education and called for a legal remedy provision that would provide for compensation in case of violations.It highlighted the specific rights of those with severe and/or multiple disabilities in this regard.

DPI said it would like to see removal of barriers and stumbling blocks for full participation in society.It highlighted the New Zealand document with regard to participation of PWD in administrative and legislative processes,and national decisions.It called for states to be responsive to the needs and experiences of PWD.

The South Africa Human Rights Commission called for the inclusion of human dignity,and equal opportunity principles and said that monitoring is an obligation of state,and should therefore be in that section.It concurred with Sweden on replacing the word condemn with "eliminate",which is a more positive word.It emphasized the obligation of states to a barrier free society.It asked for clarification on public authorities provision in 2c of the Chair Draft text.

Germany reiterated the obligation of states in legislative,judicial,policy,and legal measures.It called for states to take measures to combat discrimination by working with the media.It concurred with Canada that it should not limit other conventions.It said that progressive realization of rights should apply to economic,social,and cultural rights,and not civil or political rights.

The Coordinator said that the issue of application to public authorities vs.the private sector is a drafting issue in the Chair text and needs to be looked at.

Sweden called for a distinction between public authority/ state actions and what can be required by the private sector or individual.It highlighted the issue of whether there should be reference to progressive implementation of economic,social,and cultural rights and endorsed the EU Draft in this regard because it made clear that the basis is existing conventions.It should,in this regard,endorse principles in the Covenant on Economic,Social,and Cultural Rights and not undermine other rights.

Ireland expressed concerns about inclusion of the title "General Obligations of State Parties" because that in effect covers the whole Convention.

Venezuela called for state obligations in data collection because of the importance of knowing the condition of PWD with regard to work,health,recreation,legal time,but cautioned against any violation of privacy.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry referred to general principles outlined in the Covenant on Economic,Social,and Cultural Rights in relation to the prohibition on discrimination.It argued for PWD participation and the mainstreaming of this perspective in all areas of national policy,including with regard to poverty,because of the high incidence of poverty among PWD.It highlighted the obligations of states with regard to non-discrimination and policy making on a national level,not just with regard to international human rights.

Japan discussed the need to address violations of non-discrimination in the private sector (i.e.Access to a private apartment for PWD) and agreed with Sweden's previous statement.It referred the members to Article 4 paragraph 2d of Chair text.Similar mention is made in EU text.

Disability Australia Limited recognized that a lot of discrimination already addressed has not been by state authorities and referred to issues of accessibility and transportation in the EU Draft.It referenced how CEDAW too,has addressed violence against women in the home by individuals and surmised that the elimination of discrimination by private entities has already been addressed regionally and in programmatic measures.It called for building on existing standards and not undermining them and the inclusion of clearly stated provisions that appropriately address private entities.

The Coordinator clarified that there was no assertion being made that private discrimination should not be addressed in this convention.

Rehabilitation International made three observations.As per Article 12 of the European Convention,it is not unheard of for a human rights treaty to detach the issue of non-discrimination.Also,the state has the responsibility to delegate to the private sector with regard to this issue.It also expressed concern that the WG not cross contaminate civil and political rights with economic and social rights and highlighted the need to take positive note of progressive achievement.

The European Disability Forum (EDF) said that a basic obligation of the state is the right of partnership in formulating processes and policy with PWD.In this regard,there needs to be strong involvement of organizations of PWD in the implementation of the Convention.The state has a fundamental obligation to fully support those organizations in doing this work.The EDF said that both the private and public sector should be covered with regard to non-discrimination and that the state has an obligation to ensure the non-violation of rights.

Slovenia supported the Coordinator's statement on non-discrimination and surmised that Article 6 of CERD might be helpful in this regard.It indicated support for the principle of partnership as an obligation for states with regard organizations of PWD and indicated support for the EU paper on the issue of combating prejudice,promoting awareness,and progressive and positive action.

GUARANTEE OF EQUALITY AND NONDISCRIMINATION

Ireland pointed out that its elements paper,which was handed out at the last Ad-Hoc Committee meeting,highlights the need for a definition of direct and indirect discrimination,which is referred to on page 61 of compilation text in Article 3 of the EU Proposal and based on the EU Directive on Equality in Employment.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry called for attention to how direct and indirect discrimination are distinguished from each other and questioned the need to separate them from each other.She pointed out the problem in Chair and Bangkok drafts because these texts allow for the possibility of indirect forms of discrimination if the aim is justified and creates a loophole for allowing discrimination.This concern of pretextual language is of particular concern to those with mental or psychiatric disabilities.

The Coordinator asks for further comment on this issue and pointed out the language is quite narrow on page 32,paragraph 21 of the compilation text.He asked the previous speaker to identify the problem in the Bangkok draft (page 8,Article 2 of that draft).

The World Blind Union indicated the need to be clear on what is meant by indirect discrimination.She highlighted this WG,and the need to use documents not previously seen and two headsets as indirect discrimination against those with visual disabilities.

In response,the Coordinator points out that unless members can reach agreement on one text,they were condemned to be proceeding in this wat and that he suspected everyone was being discriminated against,though some more than others.

The World federation of the Deaf indicated that in some HR conventions,they say that non-discrimination is forbidden and that in the compilation text,there is no mention of discrimination of PWD on basis of language,which is a form of direct discrimination.This was highlighted in the Bangkok draft and called for language discrimination to be forbidden in the text,or all deaf people would be discriminated against.

Ireland pointed out that their proposal recognized indirect and direct discrimination and said that indirect discrimination would be forbidden unless there was a valid reason to justify its use,which would only be a limited exception.It pointed out that all the proposals eliminate all forms of discrimination.

World Federation of the Deaf and Blind agreed with the previous statement on language discrimination and asks if it would be possible for those making interventions to read part of document when referring to a specific article,as this would make the working method easier.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry referred back to their previous statements and said she was referring to specific proposals,not general comments in the draft compilation (which were put on the screen in the meeting room).It surmised that Article 2 in the discrimination section of the Bangkok draft and recommendations was "worse than the EU proposal" with regard to indirect discrimination.It asked for clarification on CEDAW and CERD and if they were understood to include indirect discrimination.

The Coordinator said he had difficulty in following the objective of the previous statement and said that he thought Bangkok Draft was "preventing that" (indirect discrimination).He then indicated that a discussion on this issue might best take place "in corridors with delegates" on an "informal basis" to resolve the issue.

Thailand said that when dealing with discrimination,the members need to come up with the terms regarding positive or special measures.We need to find clear way of expressing this or there will be a long debate on whether the word choice should be considered neutral and/or negative.He said as a non-English speaker,"discrimination" seemed to be a negative word and highlighted the need to clarify whether it is meant to mean/be neutral or negative.

The Coordinator said that if there is no provision for positive discrimination or affirmative action,it can seem to be discrimination in other contexts.

Canada asked for clarification of indirect and direct discrimination and caution against dividing the two,with a caveat only applying to that which is indirect.It indicated also that Article 3 of the Bangkok texts was a "high hurdle to overcome for states" because it deals with attitudinal issues,which are hard for states to guarantee and highlighted the need for flexibility for states in due to budgets which might call for prioritization of needs.He agreed with the general conception of this part.

Sierra Leone referred to the EU draft and asked that drafters make as simple as possible for PWD and everyone to understand "what we are trying to do." He referred to China's discrimination definition on page 60 and called it an option for discrimination definition.He emphasized the need to make the definition general and to use "specific measures to imply what is meant."

China explained definition for discrimination in their text on page 35 (not page 60,as referred to by the previous speaker).They called for the definition to be concise because if it is too long,it could lead to different perspectives.They called the Bangkok draft definition too long,"as if it is a textbook." They proposed to merge the definition found in the EU and Bangkok drafts with the one found in the China,Mexico,and Venezuela drafts.

Disability Australia Limited surmised that the principle of discrimination and non-discrimination has been emphasized by all stakeholders and recalled that in the Ad-hoc Committee meeting in June 2003,the majority wanted a holistic treaty,while a small majority wanted a non- discrimination treaty,modeled on CEDAW and CERD.It called for a balance in preventive and promotive aspects and the introduction of positive measures.They cautioned that although a discussion of this principle of non-discrimination could take more space in the convention than "some of us would like," this is a central issue.

Rehabilitation International opined that discrimination,in reality,is rarely overt and direct,but is usually more indirect; this is addressed in the EU text.He opined that there is no justification for direct discrimination and asked for a different term for special measures in EU text,as well as clarification on the issue of reasonable accommodation from the EU.

Sweden went back to a previous Canadian statement regarding activities of the government and other actors in the Bangkok and Chair texts,in that these ask governments to to take all kinds of measures,which should not be seen as direct HR violations.It defended the EU ``draft on this point and the expected differences in what can be expected of governments in terms of policy,legislation,and reasonable accommodation in this regard.It asked for more time on this issue as this is the part of the Convention that the WG should spend the most time on.

Germany asked if Ireland could answer RI's question first before they intervened.

Ireland said that the question put forth by RI has been discussed at length in the EU.It stated that reasonable accommodation is a means to overcome discrimination; that is,it is a means to an end.This is important in a legally binding instrument.

Germany said that the Convention should not undermine existing HR instruments,and definitions in this treaty should not be less than those rights in the Covenant on Economic,Social,and Cultural Rights.It opined that the notion of reasonable accommodation is captured best in the EU draft.

Morocco said they would not go into detail regarding discrimination,because they were interested in the broadest possible concept.They agreed with Canada that the process to change attitudes is necessary although lengthy,and must be started,given its importance.

Thailand agreed with the Bangkok draft (Article 9) which has a "positive and productive attitude toward disability." Changed attitudes,then,means both positive measures as well as eliminating negativity.The delegate noted that some target groups are not well addressed enough in the draft texts,particularly PWD in urban slums minority tribes,and minority ethnic groups,as well as those with profound and severe disabilities.

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