Volume 3, #8
January 14, 2004

Morning Session

Commenced: 10:19 AM
Adjourned: 1:03 PM

REASONABLE ACCOMODATION

At the request of the Coordinator, Rehabilitation International (RI) reported on the small group meeting on the concept of reasonable accommodation. There was widespread agreement on the core ingredients of the concept and no objections to the elements as framed in the EU text or the Chair's text. The group did not focus on one text but on what reasonable accommodation was and what it should do. Ireland explained the EU position on the status of reasonable accommodation and its place in a future Convention, which rests on an understanding of the limits of public international law that micromanages how states discharge their obligations domestically. The concept needed to be pitched generally and flexibly to have a high positive transfer value from sector to sector (education, employment, or otherwise). The meeting agreed that RI draft a footnote bringing together the consensus on the nature and function of reasonable accommodation and leave to the AHC the issue of the status of reasonable accommodation within the concept of non-discrimination. The footnote would then be discussed among WG members.

PRIVACY, HOME, PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY AND THE RIGHT TO MARRY; THE RIGHT TO LIFE

The Coordinator referred members to Draft Text A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.10 for this discussion.

Sierra Leone brought attention to "caregivers" in paragraph 3 and asked whether wonder "caregivers" was synonymous with "associates." If so, could paragraph 3 be rephrased or redrafted to reflect what is meant by the concept.

The Coordinator said that he sensed that "associates" was a broader term than "caregivers".

The Russian Federation wanted their definition of PWD to be reflected in the meeting. The Coordinator said the definition could be raised in the relevant small group session.

Japan proposed that 2(d) be changed to "the rights of persons with disabilities, with regard to guardianship, trusteeship, adoption of children, or similar institutions, where these concepts exist in national legislation in accordance with national appropriate law."

Ireland asked Japan to explain its intention in making an amendment to 2(d).

The Coordinator said that he was not sure if this should be elaborated in the Convention, because how a State establishes national legislation is a matter of the State. It could lead to some confusion if 2(d) was qualified in this way. This was a drafting issue for the AHC.

Canada expressed concern on the wording in the last sentence in 2(e) and proposed that "solely on the basis of disability" be added. The addition of the worlds "directly" and "indirectly" creates uncertainty in what is meant by the clause. The clause means that children should not be separated from their parents solely on the basis of disability.

India proposed that "in accordance with policies of states" be inserted at the end of 2(c) and that "keeping in view available resources" be inserted at the end of the second sentence in 2(b). Many developing countries would have a problem keeping this commitment if 2(b) remained as is. Also, the last sentence in 2(e) is inappropriate because the failure of a parent to care for their children may in some cases be directly attributable to disability.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) said that the first sentence in 2(e) gives the standard in international law. The intent of the last sentence in 2(e) is to say disability per se is not the issue but how well parent is taking care of the child. 2(e) should also consider whether assistance or technical devices could be provided to allow for a parent to take care of a child, because in many cases, these can make a big difference in the ability of a parent to take care of a child. Not taking care of a child is not directly related to disability because there is always human free will, whether one is disabled or not. Also, including the world "solely" in the paragraph would leave a lot at the discretion of the interpreter and he/she could easily find another reason to take a child away from a disabled parent. 2(e) should include general language but WNUSP would not object to the deleting "directly or indirectly."

The Coordinator said the issue in 2(e) was a linguistic issue.

Sierra Leone supported India's views and Canada's proposed addition of the word "solely." The word "arbitrarily" could also be added to 2(e) as an option to dealing with the issue.

Japan clarified that if 2(d) only referred to the guardianship of children, it would rescind its proposal for an amendment. If 2(d) was interpreted in a more general way (to include guardianship of mortgages and property for example, their amendment would be needed.

The Coordinator interpreted 2(d) as only referring to children.

Canada said it would be comfortable with a footnote to 2(e) indicating that some delegations wanted "solely" to be included, if "indirectly and directly" were kept in the clause.

Ireland referred members to the footnote for 2(c) as a means of resolving issues on this clause. The addition of language could be left to discussion at the AHC. All members agree that PWD should not be assumed to not be good parents. If children are to be removed from the parents, it should be on the basis of bad parenting and not because of disability. WNUSP's clarification on the meaning of 2(e) could be helpful in expressing this element.

Coordinator said that the AHC could look at the language in 2(e) further and the WG could deal with the issue with a footnote. There is no issue of substance in 2(c). The issue is that PWD should not face more restrictions on family size than people without disabilities in any State. The objective is not to change national policies on family size but to address non-discrimination of PWD in this context.

South Africa recommended that "correspondence" be replaced with "communication" in the last sentence of paragraph 1 to ensure the privacy of PWD.

New Zealand said the last phrase in 2(e) could be phrased in a more positive way. The intent is to say that children should stay with parents when possible, including parents with disabilities. Assistance should be provided when necessary to ensure this is possible.

China said that India's comments on 2(c) were valid. There is a consensus that the wording in the Chair's text is based on some reference to CEDAW.

The Coordinator concurred with the reference to a consensus.

Ireland cautioned against comparing the language in 2(c) to the language in CEDAW because CEDAW was dealing with equal spacing of children for men and women.

LIVING INDEPENDENTLY AND BEING INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY

The Coordinator referred members to A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.11 for this discussion.

WNUSP called attention to "residential and other community support services in 1(c). "On a voluntary basis" should be added some place in the paragraph as these types of services could become a sort of mini-institution for PWD.

Coordinator said that "have access to" addresses the idea that the services should be voluntary.

The Republic of Korea said that the article should include the idea that State Parties should ensure any kind of personal services for PWD if they are required for that person to live in the community.

The Coordinator said that "appropriate and effective measures in the chapeau and "access to a range of...services" covered this point. Was further elaboration required, in this case?

The Republic of Korea replied that those elements covered the issue of necessary support but specifying support would elaborate on the issue of support.

The World Federation of the DeafBlind concurred that personal assistance should be mentioned. It is important for deafblind people to have personal assistance to be part of the community (i.e. move around, shop, take part in meetings).

Lebanon said that personal assistance should be clearly mentioned in 1(c).

Uganda said that accessibility of a residential facility is also related to personal assistance. The text should also mention the cost of personal assistance.

Thailand supported the inclusion of personal assistance in 1(c) in principle but did not know if it would be feasible for states to provide it, because it is at the level of an individual. This would be especially true for developing countries, which sometimes cannot even provide public assistance. 1(c) should incorporate the following phrase: "including personal assistance, if possible, or where appropriate."

Coordinator said that members could discuss personal assistance in the context of the articles on mobility and accessibility.

ROK concurred with Thailand's proposal because providing personal assistance could be a cost burden for some governments. In the future though, the rights of PWD could be actualized through personal assistance.

WFDB reminded members that it not impossible to provide PWD with personal assistants. In practice, many assistants in developing countries are volunteers. Personal assistants do not have to be paid and can also be family members. Personal assistance is necessary for independent living for the deafblind, necessary for independent living.

South Africa supported the article in principle but proposed that 1(b) be removed because it is redundant. 1(a) already allows for choice in place of residence.

Colombia said that developing countries might not be able to provide personal assistance as a minimum standard as a form of support for independent living. Personal assistance could be included as a possibility or an option among many other choices for the State.

Ireland commented that it was unsure how an international law mechanism could force people to become volunteer personal assistants. The concept needed to be developed further. The article should not contain a list of forms of support as it would be hard to reach agreement on a Convention that includes long listings.

Coordinator proposed that the WG mark the issue of personal assistance as important issue for the AHC to discuss or see as an option. It is not possible to find a solution to the issue here and now.

India proposed a change in the title to "living in and being included in the community." The existing title could be construed as an attempt to segregate PWD from their families in the Asian context, where extended families are important.

Disabled People International (DPI) proposed that "measures to make PWD aware of the existence of such services" be added to 2(c).

Inclusion International (II) said that 1(b) should not be deleted as the Convention should contain a clear message that institutions should be shut down. The Convention is not just a mechanism for lawyers to interpret but for PWD themselves.

EQUAL RECOGNITION AS A PERSON BEFORE THE LAW

The Text Proposed by the Coordinator had the following explanatory note: "there was broad agreement in the WG during the discussion of Article 20 of the Chair's draft text on the right to own property that this was part of the right of equality before the law. On the suggestion of the WG this Article on equality before the law was amended to include a more specific reference to the right to own property."

WNUSP endorsed this article.

Sweden acknowledged that the EU text had not adequately dealt with the issue of legal capacity, and that there is a need to address additional safeguards, for example, an appeals process whereby a PWD who may lose legal capacity completely can challenge this in courts. Terminology in paragraphs 4 and 5 needs to be improved to avoid any indication of a separate right to assistance though.

WFDB supported this article. Deafblind people need a lot of assistance in handling their financial affairs, especially given that most of the coins and notes of the world are "absolutely inaccessible."

The OHCHR highlighted CEDAW Article 13 whereby states parties are obliged to eliminate discrimination in order to ensure on a basis of equality "the right to bankloans, mortgages other forms of financial credit."

Ireland agreed with Sweden that the question of full legal capacity will need to be revisited at length in the AHC; the implications of paragraph 2 are not clear. Paragraph 4 may be too detailed, and in view of evolving technology, may become outdated. No one has the automatic right to secure a bankloan or mortgage except on an equal basis with others and without discrimination, and this should be specified in the language of this article.

Jamaica asked if this clause would address the situation of a blind person who wanted to be a witness in a court of law.

Canada acknowledged the complexity of this article, possibly raising conflict of laws issues, and dealing with scenarios where there is a need for substitution for the PWD concerned. There is no right to assistance per se, but the language could be rephrased so that "an access to assistance" is recognised. There is a need for generalization in Para 4 as noted by Ireland. Para 5 should be amended to "take all ... measures to ensure equal access of PWD to own .." This reflects the notion of "equal chance."

Inclusion International supported this article, and Canada's position. This article was developing new concepts as they applied to PWD. As Sweden recognized, it was necessary to have legal safeguards, the AHC should deal with this question further, keeping in mind that it should apply to both civil and criminal laws.

Venezuela noted that Para 1 phraseology of equality of rights needs to be revised. An equivalent to Article 20 (2) of the Chair's proposed text was needed. The rights of women should be recognized.

WBU objected to Para 4 language that excluded blind people by specifying the need for signing documents and cited examples of countries that discriminate against blind people in this fashion. As Jamaica had indicated, blind people are also not allowed to be witnesses in courts.

Thailand asked for clarification that if people without disabilities have rights with regard to bankloans etc then would PWD have the same rights.

Serbia-Montenegro echoed the concerns of Ireland, Sweden, Canada regarding Para 2, highlighting again the fact that "legal capacity" is dealt with in national jurisdictions in different ways. Further elaboration of this issue from the AHC would be required to ensure that many countries would sign. PWD deserve assistance to exercise their rights, as in Para 4. However there is a need to be conscious of how people with sensory disabilities are often excluded in such situations, and technological developments.

Lebanon approved the inclusion of a reference to the alternative ways of submitting signatures and called on the WG to present as clear a text as possible to the AHC.

LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON

WNUSP objected to the exception to the prohibition on arbitrary arrest in para 2. "PWD have the same rights to the same procedures as all other people who are being potentially deprived of liberty. There is no need and is discriminatory to establish a special case for PWD who are subjected to arrest and detention". The language on motivation is not clear ? discrimination in this convention includes both purpose and effect, and motivation only implies purposeful discrimination. "Will be motivated by" should be replaced with "will have the purpose or effect of discriminating based on disability." Para 3 (a) is vague and reflects "a great need for elaboration of specific kinds of protections for PWD in the context of criminal or other arrest" both in terms of procedure and conditions of detention. Para 3 (c) (ii) assumes a context where deprivation of liberty is indefinite and therefore calling for regular review. This is typical for people who are detained on the basis of disability and not typical for people who are detained for other reasons. In discussing procedural guarantees, going below existing standards is unacceptable. Perhaps a more general existing right that allows a person to challenge the lawfulness of arrest and detention, the right of habeas corpus, for example could be considered as a substitute. With regard to civil commitment, this may not have wide applicability in other countries and could be replaced with the more general "civil detention based on the disability." With regard to emergency situations in relation to the prohibition on arbitrary arrest in para 2, the ICCPR permits derogation from rights in emergency situations except where such derogation is based solely on the enumerated categories of discrimination. This is the minimum that this convention should also allow in permitting derogation, so that disability is on the same level as the other enumerated categories ICCPR and to prohibit derogation of rights in a national emergency based solely on a disability. The OHCHR pointed out that the CRC Committee has considered "placement" as constituting a deprivation of liberty, giving children a right to seek regular review. WNUSP recommended that given that the CRC is the single source, this point is more appropriately raised in the context of the detention of children only.

Japan found Para 3 (c) (ii) to be redundant because the government is not obligated to seek regular review of people without disabilities who have been detained. The last sentence in Para 3 (d) is also redundant, since any detention motivated by disability is by definition unlawful.

Canada agreed with WNUSP on the use of the word "motivated" in Para 2 and 3 (c) (ii) as this required an assessment of intention, and recommended that it be replaced by "based". The last sentence of Para 2 also needed clarification. Para 3 (c) should be qualified with "where applicable" or "where necessary". The sub items (c) and (d) cover issues not specific to disability and "inject uncertainty".

Sweden noted that the legal safeguards in Para 3 need to be improved. Para 2 needs to be reworded to draw a distinction between lawful means of depriving someone of liberty and arbitrary arrest and detention. "Emergency situations" raises legal principles Iike derogation as well as a number of specific circumstances. For the purposes of this meeting it might be useful to mention a general statement on derogation, eg. that nothing in this convention should be taken to mean a change in the obligations in other conventions, that is typical of human rights treaties. However a discussion of this issue in relation to specific articles should be left to the AHC.

Mexico recommended that the Coordinator's Text on equality before the law should be dealt with in conjunction with the Coordinator's Text on liberty and security of the person. In either Article, a recommendation to the AHC could be footnoted referencing the need to consider minimum legal safeguards and due process of law for PWD. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (c) should be redrafted bearing in mind that their precepts are already embodied in the CRC and ICCPR. Additional information with regard to emergency situations would be helpful.

Ireland approaches this issue from the standpoint of the EU proposal and is comfortable with this Article. "Civil commitment" is referred to as" involuntary admission" in Irish law; in no case does this apply solely due to disability. Because "it is not always recognized by states that involuntary admission is a form of detention in the sense meant by the ICCPR", it was necessary to restate the concepts and retain the safeguards in Para 3. Every person can challenge the lawfulness and reasonableness of involuntary admission. In addition habeas corpus guarantees allow any case of a deprivation of liberty to come before a court. "Compensation" in (d) could be replaced with "effective remedies" to be consistent with other human rights treaties. The Coordinator noted that "compensation" has been used in the context of the ICCPR.

China echoed the "well-grounded" concerns of other delegates highlighting the complexity in the legal assistance issues here and recommended bracketing 3 (c) (i), deleting 3 (c) (ii). This needs more input from governments.

Lebanon drew the distinction between legislation and practice in how disabled people are more likely to be subject to unjustified arrest or detention. Strengthening the article on protection would be one way to address this problem.

FREEDOM FROM TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

Canada recommended that the question of intervention is more appropriate in a separate article, or an article on health. If this is to be retained however, it should be qualified as "medical intervention." There is in addition the need for a further qualification, that would allow the government to intervene in the best interests of the PWD involved, at the end: "without a procedure that is established by law and with the application of relevant legal safeguards."

WNUSP highlighted the perceptions and attitudes of society and medical professionals that fundamentally question the right of people with psycho-social disabilities to make their own decisions. This is connected to autonomy and the right to be different. Institutionalisation does not belong in an article on health ? it needs to be acknowledged as a form of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Japan supported Canada's position and suggested adding similar wording to this para.

Ireland again cited the EU text on this issue which does refer to preventing cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment in situations of forced institutionalization but does not completely prohibit the latter. "In the most exceptional cases", forced intervention may be necessary, in which case the principle of protection of the PWD would apply. "Forced" should precede references to both intervention and institutionalisation. As stated in the paragraph, the notion of medical experimentation without consent constitutes torture fits within this article. However the last clause of the paragraph should be qualified, except "in certain circumstances for the purpose of alleviating a condition" The Canadian proposal to subject any such institutionalization to safeguards would be an improvement in the text. Either way there is a need for a more precise explanation of the two terms and perhaps this recommendation can be made of the AHC.

Morocco agreed that no PWD should be subject to experimentation, scientific or otherwise. However due to the fact that some people "cannot decide for themselves like disabled children and the severely intellectually disabled," it suggested amendments accordlingly.

Slovenia echoed the concerns of Canada, supported its amending language, highlighted the exceptional nature of these interventions. There is a need for further clarification of these concepts given that there may be links with the article on the liberty and security of the person.

Inclusion International illustrated an example from Germany of an institution that existed to separate its detainees from the rest of society. This was judged to constitute "degrading treatment." In order to account for such situations, the following additional language was suggested to the last sentence: "or providing care."

China preferred that forced interventions be addressed under the topic freedom from violence and abuse. The qualifying phrase "aimed at" gives the impression that institutionalization with another stated intent is valid. In principle, forced institutionalization should be opposed with qualifiers for exceptional circumstances.

Sweden agreed with Ireland that the paragraph should be separated given the absolute prohibition on torture on the one hand and the qualified opposition to forced institutionalization on the other. With regard to the need for disabled children to have representatives, this position is in contradiction to the CRC, which calls for children to participate in their own decisionmaking.

WNUSP again highlighted the differences in a discussion where the voices of people who choose to speak on behalf of PWD take precedence over those of PWD who have experienced these interventions. The distinction between interventions that are justified as being for so-called "therapeutic" purposes and those for more punitive purposes are false.

Colombia drew a distinction between medical treatment and scientific experimentation and noted that provision should be made to ensure that in the case where the PWD is unable to give consent, that of a proxy would be acceptable.

Afternoon Session

Commenced: 3:14
Adjourned: 6:08

FREEDOM FROM VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

WNUSP commented that though the issue of forced interventions had been discussed in the previous article, it should also be considered here. There are other kinds of forced interventions, such as medical interventions performed to control behavior, often performed in the criminal justice and educational settings. This is being flagged as an issue here since it was not taken up in the article education. It is very important that this convention reflect the full range of protections against violence and abuse, including appropriate measures including legal remedies and efforts to promote social reintegration.

Canada referred to its comments from the previous article, stipulating that we are talking about medical interventions. Paragraph 2 requires some qualification and the wording suggested for Article 9 would satisfy this. Consideration should possibly be given to use of word involuntary instead of forced, unless forced has special meaning in this context. It is important to think carefully about placement of this provision. With regard to interventions repetition and duplication should be avoided.

WFDB supported the content regardless of its placement but stressed that abuse takes place in state supported venues such as boarding schools and other state institutions and suggested that "both within and outside the home" may not reflect this adequately.

Japan reiterated its point from the morning's discussion that there should be language providing for treatment in exceptional cases, but only under the condition that due process protections are guaranteed.

LSN said that this article should expressly reference examples of the kinds of situations where people with disabilities may be particularly at risk from violence and abuse, such as institutionalization or care-giving situations. the phrase "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote ..." may encourage well-meaning but paternalistic or prescriptive measures. We would support language that encourages States to make services available to promote the physical and psychological recovery of people with disabilities who have been subjected to violence and abuse, but it must be left to the disabled person to choose what, if any, services they wish to access. People with disabilities must have freedom of choice.

The Coordinator noted that regarding abuse and violence in facilities, paragraph 4 appears to address this within institutions of the state

South Africa sought clarity of term "beggary" and cautioned against terminology that might be unclear. The Coordinator commented that he assumed that this means abducting people for the purpose of using them for forced begging. This practice occurs in some countries where it is though that PWD are more likely to attract charity.

II noted that abuse is not limited to medical areas. It happens in home and workplace and the convention should protect against this without restrictions on where abuse may occur.

Columbia said that the language in paragraph should be clarified regarding whether it is prohibiting forced institutionalization or any kind of institutionalization. The adjective "forced" should be repeated before the word "institutionalization" if it is meant to apply to this as well as to interventions.

Ireland noted that the comments it had made in the morning session regarding forced interventions and forced institutionalization apply here as well. Regarding paragraph 3, the intention we clear but the wording should be clarified, especially the words "necessary support" Otherwise text is acceptable.

WNUSP, in response to Columbia's intervention, clarified that the intent regarding forced institutionalization versus institutionalization in general was covered in the discussion and the resulting document on the Right to Live in the Community. Some people would advocate prohibition on a broader scale of certain kinds of institutions, while recognizing that, until such time as these institutions no longer exist, there will be people in them who require protection.

ACCESSIBILITY

Thailand said that this article is well drafted. However, clarification is required in paragraph 2 (a). The accessibility requirement here seems limited to public facilities and services. Does public mean publicly funded or for public use, which would include privately owned or funded? In addition, wording should be added to the final paragraph regarding research and development of assistive technologies to ensure that products are reasonably priced.

The Coordinator said that his interpretation of "public buildings" in 2 (a) is that it refers to those owned by public entities and excludes private buildings which may be used by the public. Those are dealt with in 2 (c) which encourages States to "encourage private entities which provide public facilities and services to take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities." Therefore, the text reflects an immediate and absolute obligation on States regarding public entities, but for private entities, the obligation is for States to encourage accessibility.

WNUSP called attention to the wording in paragraph 1 which could be interpreted to mean that PWD should have access to services for people with disabilities but not necessarily to all services available to the general public. In addition, we should be clear here, and in the convention as a whole, that these points apply to people with all kinds of disabilities and WNUSP may introduce language at another time to ensure that this is reflected. The Coordinator clarified that the intent of the paragraph is to ensure accessibility of all services and this might be resolved with a simple punctuation adjustment in the sentence.

IID stated that there are public places and private places that provide services. In some cases, public services are provided by the private sector and the State has a regulatory role to play in such instances. For example, in Costa Rica public transportation is provided by the private sector while the government regulations govern the issuance of licenses, accessibility, safety, etc. Similarly, all buildings that provide public services must be accessible regardless of whether the service itself is provided by the private sector.

Ireland said that the objectives of the article are acceptable but the chapeau requires clarity regarding the undertaking and commitment that States are entering into. In paragraph 2 there is a reference to progressive measures for the obligations enumerated, however the obligations in paragraph 1 are even more far-reaching than those in paragraph 2 and thus we should consider including the concept of progressive measures there as well

Morocco offered the suggestion that, in order to cover as many buildings as possible, the text read "public buildings, semi-public buildings and private buildings open to the public". "Encouraging" the private sector to make buildings and services accessible will create confusion regarding the financial implications for the private sector. Communications which originate in the private sector should also be explored in terms of ensuring accessibility.

Uganda pointed out that the question of encouraging private entities had been discussed consensus reached that standards of access should apply to everyone including the private sector. It is surprising that this idea of standards for everyone is being watered down by this notion of encouragement in the text. This concept should be eliminated and all standards and guidelines should be applied to everyone. With respect to the paragraph 2(f), relating to research and development of assistive devices, this to relates more to mobility than accessibility and should be included in the article on mobility.

Sierra Leone expressed that "the built environment" is a confusing term and should be clarified. Regarding public and private buildings, it may be helpful to refer to ownership in qualifying these terms. Uganda's suggestion to eliminate the notion of encouragement of the private sector is a good one. However, if this is done, the text should talk about "minimum national standards" (such as building codes) which governments must develop to require accessibility.

DPI suggested that paragraph 2(e) include language to ensure that disabled peoples organizations are consulting during the evaluation of standards and guidelines and not only during their development.

EDF stated that this topic requires the use of very concrete and practical terms. The State should guarantee the full and immediate accessibility of all new buildings. For existing buildings, the State should provide a timeframe for making them accessible. Some buildings and services are owned and offered by the public. Other services are contracted by the government to private entities and these must be offered from accessible places. This article should be drafted to create the foundation for legislation at the national level that creates real conditions for access: immediate access for new buildings and a timeline for accessibility for old buildings. Finally, rather than adding the notion of progressive realization to paragraph 1, it should be eliminated from paragraph 2.

South Africa recommended, as noted in footnote 1(a), including the concept of international cooperation in the paragraphs discussing national standards and guidelines for accessibility and research and development for new assistive technologies. In addition, the concept of provision of development cooperation in new assistive technologies should be added to the paragraphs on national standards and guidelines and universal design. Development cooperation could also be in chapeau of paragraph 2. Finally, the convention should provide for accessibility for all buildings, not just public buildings, in order to achieve the barrier-free environment we envision.

Canada supported the Irish suggestion to extend the limitation to progressive measures to paragraph 1, noting that some the items in that paragraph are challenges which governments will need time and resources to tackle. Also, the distinction between the public and private sector should be retained in the text.

Thailand suggested that term "public buildings and services" be changed to "buildings and services intended for public use". "Progressive measures" should be replaced with "legislative and policy measures". Assistive technologies belong in this article as well as in the article on mobility, since not all assistive devices are mobility related. The cost issues that have raised so much concern could be solved if the concept of universal design takes hold.

LSN stated that in developing countries and countries emerging from armed conflict, development financing is used for rebuilding the infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc.) and countries and must take account of how this financing is used. The following language should be added: "Ensure that development funding provided individually or jointly is subject to a review of its impact on people with disabilities and their rights under this convention."

Columbia suggested that: the word "obstacles" be replaced by "physical barriers and attitudinal obstacles"; the addition of "for all stakeholders in contact with PWD about their needs"; the addition of the word "all" before "public buildings"; and replacing "roads" with "public space".

Ireland noted that, with regard the application of progressive measures in paragraph 2, consultation with DPOs should not be subject to progressive measures and thus this element (sub-paragraph (e)) might need to be moved from this paragraph to protect it from the progressive implementation application. Ireland has grave reservations about LSN's suggestion on international cooperation as it might impose obligations on non-State Parties who are involved in international cooperative relationships.

China made several editing suggestions to resolve redundancy problems it perceived in the Accessibility article.

The Coordinator confirmed that further work is clearly needed, especially regarding clarification between the public and private buildings.

MOBILITY

Ireland noted that some of its comments on accessibility were also applicable here, including whether using the word "ensure" means that the concept of progressivity should be applied. "Live assistance" and "mediation" need clarification in this context. We have addressed cost issues before and this article raises similar concerns.

Korea suggested adding language to: capture the notion of freedom of choice of method of movement; eliminate limits on mobility such as restrictive bus schedules; and ensure affordability.

Sierra Leone noted that throughout the document, we refer to "effective measures", "appropriate measures" and now "progressive measures". Do we use progressive measures only when significant cost in involved? In reality, there is cost involved in all of these standards. We need to be consistent and clear in the terminology we choose.

The Coordinator concurred that these terms should be carefully clarified.

WFDB requested clarification of "live assistance" and "mediation".

India commented that all three paragraphs in the article on Mobility relate to assistive devices and technologies and thus "Assistive Technologies" should be title of the article. This might lead to the importation of relevant elements from other articles. This is important because "mobility" is a term that has relevance mainly to visually and orthopedically impaired persons while "assistive technologies" are relevant to all kinds of disabilities.

Canada supported clarification along the lines that Sierra Leone had suggested. The comment that this should be taken as a progressive measure is noted: it is not possible to "ensure" everything in the text and it might be helpful to instead use language such as "enhance the liberty of movement" instead. Also on that point, the term "liberty of movement" creates some concern as it has a distinct meaning in the ICCPR. "Personal Mobility" might be a solution to this, but even that could be confusing. More thought needs to be given to this issue of terminology.

Mexico said that training in mobility (specialized staff) must be provided to people working with PWD. Generally, the issue of mobility has not been adequately dealt with here or in the article on Accessibility. We talk about the equipment, the buildings, transportation, etc. But the issue of where we want to go and when is not very well addressed and, given the framing of this article, here might not be the best place to address it. Perhaps it is better dealt with in the article on Accessibility.

Thailand suggested adding "legislative and policy measures" be added to this article and the one on Accessibility, as it has been in other places in the text.

Uganda proposed addressing awareness raising for persons with disabilities so that they are aware of the options available to them with respect to these issues.

WFD noted that "mediation" does not mean services aimed at helping disabled people but rather assistance that serves a mediation purpose, such as sign language interpretation or real-time captioning, which is not assistance that provides input or help, but only conveys information. This term should be retained.

The Coordinator commented that this clarifies that the term "mediation" is a term of art with a specific meaning in this context.

Serbia and Montenegro commented that most of the issues that are dealt with in this article could be addressed in an article on assistive technology. The WFD explanation of mediation is very helpful and should be explained in the text. The Indian suggestion for rearranging this article is a good one.

Lebanon supported retaining "ensuring mobility" instead of replacing it with "enhancing mobility". In addition, at least a minimum of mobility and communication aids must be provided at no cost, as PWD should not have to pay simply to move around and communicate. Regarding progressive implementation, this concept needs to be addressed carefully and should be flagged in a footnote to the AHC.

LSN supported the Canadian proposal to change the title to "Personal Mobility". In addition, freedom of movement as stated in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be addressed in a separate article.

UNIVERSAL/INCLUSIVE DESIGN

The Coordinator remarked that the article presents the problem flagged by Ireland, with regard to precedents in international law around the use of the backward slash symbol. The Coordinator invited comment on the Article's note to the WG concerning whether or not this article should be moved to the section on general obligations of States Parties.

India strongly supported including this article in the general obligations of States Parties. The concept of universal or inclusive design should be one of the basic principles guiding the convention.

Jamaica flagged the concept of "minimum possible adaptation" required of "universally/inclusively designed goods, services, equipment and facilities" and explored the linkages between this concept and the discussion of Article 16 on accessibility, Article 17 on mobility, and the nature of the role of the public and private sector. If this concept is included in the general principles then perhaps "encouraging private entities" should be replaced with stronger language. States should seek to put in place, with respect to building codes for example, some minimum standards to ensure accessibility. Lastly, if this is to be in the general principles it will apply not only to the article on accessibility, but also to the one addressing mobility.

WFDB underlined that universal design implicated not only adaptation of a product or service, but also its design. In other words all devices should be designed from the beginning for all. This is a broad principle and should be included in the general obligations.

EDF pointed to US and EU laws, noting that when public entities purchase equipment from the private sector, the goods or services purchased are required to meet certain standards. The principle of accessibility in public procurement policy could be included the convention.

WNUSP noted that the language in this article to the effect that States parties should "promote" the "development...of universally/inclusively designed goods..." does not appear to constitute a very strong obligation. Therefore, India's proposal to move this article to the general obligations section of the treaty is supported.

Uganda proposed that the backward slash in the title be replaced by "and", and supported retaining this topic in a separate provision, stating that it may not be receive its due attention if included under general obligations.

WFD asserted that when addressing the concept of universal design, the issue of information dissemination should be taken into account. With new technology it is now possible to produce information that can be easily made available in all formats. However, even with this capability it is still necessary to rely on the "good will" of those involved carry out the alternative formats. Web pages should automatically be designed to be used by blind people. In addition, information services based on voice interaction should be available also in visual formats. WFD noted that that certain mobile phone models can easily be used by both blind and deaf people, which is an example of universal design.

China expressed doubts about whether this should be considered a general principle of the convention. Currently, the meaning is not very clear and the wording is rather technical. The AHC should decide whether to include this concept under general obligations or retain the separate provision.

Thailand supported the idea of including universal design in the general obligations. However, the current drafting is confusing. The first part refers to promoting universal design and the second part deals with the quality of universally designed goods and services. Once things are based on universal design, they require less cost and adaptation. This is strongest argument for this concept and should be reflected in the general obligations.

Lebanon supported moving the article to the general obligations section of the convention and asserted that States should not only be required to promote the "availability" of universally designed goods and services, but that they should also be obliged to promote their "use."

PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC LIFE

Ireland expressed concerns over language in the text proposal contained in section b (i). The three categories included there?political parties, civil society and public administration--did not belong together. Political parties and non-governmental organizations (civil society) should be independent of the state. Public administration, on the other hand, is an element within the state. It is appropriate for States to undertake stronger commitments related to areas directly under their control than to those that are not or should not be under their control. The wording of this paragraph should be examined. Regarding political parties and NGOs, there is a right to freedom of association not just for PWD but for others as well. There is a balance in international law regarding the right to join something but subject to the rules of the organization concerned. Clearly, it is a problem if the rules of an organization are discriminatory against PWD but our wording must be careful regarding the degree of commitment and compulsion. Regarding paragraph c, the words "on an equal basis as others" should come after "participate" instead of before it.

LSN called for a general provision on participation in a separate article, that is broader than voting and holding public office, though this is essential. The current draft could be strengthened, in line with existing international legal precedents with the following language: In applying the provisions of this Convention, States Parties shall:

1. Consult the people with disabilities concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative organizations, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly;
2. Establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least the same extent as other sectors of the population, at appropriate levels of decision-making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programs;
3. Participate in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of plans, and programs for national, regional and international development that may affect them directly.
4. The result of the public participation shall be taken into account as far as possible.

The Coordinator drew attention to language in Article 4 under the heading General Obligations in WG text A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.1. This article outlines obligations on States to include PWD and their representative organizations in the development of policies and legislation to implement the convention.

WNUSP drew attention to the phrase "the right and opportunity of citizens with disabilities to vote and be elected" in provision (a) of this text. This language might be weaker than what appears in the Chair's draft. In this article it is more a question of promoting an environment where this right can be exercised as opposed to a strong statement of the right to vote and be elected, which is preferred. Responding to the WNUSP, the Coordinator noted concerns expressed in previous discussions of the WG that a person does not have the "right" to be elected. The language in this article, as it now stands, is consistent with the ICCPR.

Canada concurred that that the aim of the draft language is to provide the opportunity to be elected as distinguished from a "right." Canada also agreed with Ireland about distinguishing areas of government and public administration from other categories cited in the text and supported the approach of encouraging States Parties to take measures as appropriate for certain areas.

Sierra Leone expressed concerns over the word "all" as a qualifier for "decision-making processes." The Coordinator noted that the qualifying language in provision (c) "on an equal basis with others" is designed to soften the obligation of States "to ensure that PWD and their organizations on an equal basis to others, participate in all decision-making processes..."

Jamaica noted that provision (c) is ambiguous. Irrespective of the issue of disability, all people are not able to participate in all decision-making processes. If a person is not an elected official, he or she does not have the right to participate in certain processes. Granting participation should be on an equal basis with others.

Japan echoed wording regarding "all" decision-making processes.

Regarding the language to "allow, where necessary, the provision of assistance in voting to citizens with disabilities," DPI proposed that the phrase "of their choice" be inserted after assistance. It is essential for PWD to determine what kind of assistance they need.

Ireland suggested that Canada's proposal be inserted in a footnote. There should be different levels of commitment for the public sector as opposed to areas which do not fall under direct governmental control. With respect to DPI's proposal, given that most States need to regulate voting procedures, this proposal goes further than most countries would be comfortable with.

Addressing the area of participation in decision-making, Thailand asserted that issues related to disability should include PWD beyond an equal basis with others, as these directly affect their lives. In addition, political parties in all countries are under certain laws, and they should not have right to discrimination against people based on disability.

Serbia and Montenegro agreed that the issue of participation in public administration should be distinct from participation in civil society.

CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

The Coordinator noted that the main source for this article is the CRC, as mentioned in the footnote. The footnote stipulates that article 23 of the CRC "is a specific elaboration of disability issues in a Convention on children that does not otherwise deal with disabilities, Article 13 of this text, however, is a specific elaboration of children's issues in a convention where the rest of the text does deal with disabilities."

II noted the use of the term "special care". In some countries the term "inclusive" is used instead of "special", as in "inclusive care" or "inclusive education." II, recognizing that the word "inclusive" is contested, proposed deletion of the word special. Moreover the word "care" is used in the article later on without a qualifier.

South Africa proposed that the provision of appropriate devices be dealt with in this article. Regarding education, the delegate proposed that the need to reflect the need for quality of education.

Ireland cautioned the WG against providing for less favorable rights than in the CRC.

Regarding the term "appropriate services," Colombia proposed substituting appropriate with "integral." This term implies coordinating various health sectors and encompassing various professionals working to treat PWD.

Venezuela supported Colombia's proposal to add the term integral, given that it is a technical term. It relates to other aspects, not simply to education and personal assistance. In addition, the words rehabilitation and habilitation should be included in full, not simply to include through the use of brackets, as in [re]habilitation.

Ireland suggested that "comprehensive" was a more appropriate term for "integral", which is the most obvious direct translation of the Spanish term suggested by Venezuela.

Lebanon suggested adding a paragraph to the effect that States Parties undertake all measures for early detection of disability in order to provide services at the earliest stage possible. WNUSP advised that caution should be used with regard to the term "early intervention." There are some contexts when early intervention will harm the child, particularly children with psychosocial disabilities. These children are often subjected to drugging in the context of early intervention.

Korea expressed concerns about the use of the term "spiritual development".

ELIMINATION OF STEREOTYPES AND PREJUDICES

WFB asserted that the portrayal of PWD in the media should be included in the awareness campaign section of this article. PWD are either portrayed as victims or heroes, not simply as normal people. It is important to educate the public, through the media, about the lives, skills and contributions to society made by PWD.

China suggested that where the article addresses public awareness campaigns, there might be a list of ideas for carrying out activities, such as establishing a national disability day. The delegate also suggested making explicit reference to sports activities.

The Republic of Korea suggested changing the title. "Elimination of Stereotypes and Prejudices" takes a negative approach to the issue. "Promotion of Public Awareness" is a more positive angle.

Thailand drew attention to the reference to promoting an image of PWD as "full and capable members of society." The delegate suggested substituting "productive" in place of "full." In addition, the word "capable" should probably come first so that it reads "capable and productive members of society." Thailand also pointed to the language "to foster an attitude of respect for the rights of PWD" and proposed that the word "positive" be inserted before "attitude."

The Asia-Pacific Disability Forum took issue with Thailand's suggestion to use the word "productive." It is important to recognize that rights are universal. If rights are linked to productive value, this would distinguish between certain groups of people who are productive and others who are not, thus undermining the rights of a certain group. The WNUSP suggested that "contributing" might be a better way of phrasing it.

STATISTICS AND DATA COLLECTION

The Coordinator noted that there was no agreement reached on this issue. Colombia, which facilitated the elaboration of this text, endeavored to reflect the different views and sides of the debate in the footnotes, which are obviously an integral part of the document.

Ireland asserted that his delegation's fundamental reservations persist in relation to this text.

LSN expressed support for the inclusion of a provision on statistics and data collection and went on to suggest the following two changes. Firstly, the wording in sub-paragraph 2 does not adequately convey the objective of engaging in statistics and data collection. Statistics and data are important tools in the formulation and implementation of appropriate programs and policies to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities. This concept is captured in the introductory paragraph but needs to be better incorporated in sub-paragraph 2. Second, on a related issue, the provision should make clear that the information referenced in sub-paragraph 5 should be gathered to provide information on PWD actual enjoyment of their rights as articulated in this convention.

WNUSP expressed regret that it was not able to directly input in the small group discussion. The representative expressed concerns related to privacy and the possible use of such statistics. WNUSP read out language in the article stipulating that the information collected should "protect the right to privacy..." This should be amended to reflect that it is in the collection and the maintenance of this information that the right to privacy is most at risk and needs protection. It may be necessary to have specific mention of the rights of that are to be protected. The article also indicates that information on PWD "be collected in close collaboration with all stakeholders in contact with PWD." WNUSP noted that it considers PWD are the primary stakeholders in all of the issues "affecting us." Problems may arise in collecting information through people who may have conflicting interests to the PWD themselves, such as members of the family or medical professionals. If the intent is that PWD have the opportunity to be notified that there is data collection going on, then the language needs to be clarified. Information collected should be used only for statistical purposes. As such, the data should be kept only in a statistical form, not in a manner that would identify particular individuals. The information should be used on the general policy-making level.

The Coordinator asked that delegations with strong views examine the footnotes to determine if their concerns are expressed there. If not, delegations should bring their opinions to Colombia.

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