音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: ナビメニューを飛ばして本文へ ナビメニューへ

第1回国連障害者の権利条約特別委員会

Disability Negotiations Daily Summary
Volume 1,#3 July 31, 2002

デイリー・サマリー第1巻第3号 2002年7月31日(水) 

NGO 地雷生存者ネットワーク

項目 内容
概要 フィリピン、インド、シエラレオーネ、ヨルダン、メキシコ、ドミニカ、日本、韓国、サポート・コアリション・インターナショナル、WFMH、Madreなど25カ国、3NGOの発言

以下全文(英語)
Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, 29 July - 9 August 2002 : NGO Daily Summaries :

Several co-sponsors of the resolution establishing the Ad Hoc Committee (A/56/168) spoke, including Japan, South Africa and the Philippines. Some states who had not intended to participate did so in order to express concerns that they had not had adequate time to receive instructions from their capitals. Several states expressed the wish to resolve the pressing procedural questions of NGO participation as a matter of priority. Approx 25 states took the floor along with 3 NGOs. The Chairperson, Luis Gallegos announced that the Vice-Chairperson of the Bureau of Members would be the Representative from South Africa, part of the African Regional Group. It was also announced that the Asian Group elected the Representative form the Philippines as its representative on the Bureau.

Morning Session

Commenced: 10:24
Recessed: 12:36

The Representative from the Philippines, Anacleto Rei Lacanilao, stressed that the issue of protecting the rights and dignity of people with disabilities encompasses "relevant issues within the discourse of both social development and human rights." As a result, it would be inappropriate to "highlight one framework at the expense of the other." In addition, while some aspects of the issue would need to "take on the uncompromising status as basic human rights," implementation would depend upon states to introduce "programmatic efforts" which, because of constraints on financial and other resources, "some states my find difficult to assume as outright treaty obligations." Considering "universal acceptance" of the convention a goal, it expressed concern that any "polarization on the conceptual framework of the draft convention would not be helpful in achieving that goal."

The Representative from India, Mukta D. Tomar noted that public education and awareness-raising about the human rights issues facing people with disabilities are important catalysts in improving the lives of people with disabilities, and that the work of the Committee would assist in raising public consciousness of these issues. Also, the special circumstances of each country (and in particular developing countries) should be taken into account, because the "inability of the international community to address concerns of the developing countries will only detract from the efforts being made by these countries to deal with this important issue." In addition, the "development of a multiplicity of instruments without adequate consideration to their implementability will seriously detract from our efforts."

In a statement by Sylvester E. Rowe, Sierra Leone stressed that the rights and dignity "of over 600 million of our fellow human beings who are stricken with disability" cannot be ignored. It considered the decision to elaborate a convention "long overdue" but consistent with the mandate of the UN, and in keeping with previous measures taken to "adopt separate and legally-binding conventions for the protection of the rights of" specific populations, such as women and children. It did not foresee any problems reconciling the relationship between a convention and existing instruments, with the latter constituting useful "building blocks" for the convention. Sierra Leone called special attention to the challenges it now faces in "restoring the dignity of thousands of victims" of the "rebel war" whose "limbs and hands were deliberately and viciously amputated with impunity … for having voted in the 1996 democratic elections." Finally, it called for a drafting process that was "not politicized."

The Representative from Japan, Yoshiyuki Motomura, stated that it believed "the voice of civil society should be respected," and to that end it will act as host to several important meetings in Japan later this year: ESCAP's High Level Meeting to Conclude the Decade of Disabled Persons; the sixth World Assembly of Disabled People's International (DPI); the Campaign 2002 to promote the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons; and the Twelfth Rehabilitation International (RI) Asia and Pacific Regional Conference. Moreover, "for those conferences organized by NGOs, the Government of Japan will extend financial and other support, including earmarked contributions to the United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability for DPI's Assembly, which we understand will be used to support the participation from developing countries."

Speaking on behalf of Mexico, Gilberto Rinc Gallardo described the Mexican proposal as the result of extensive collaboration by government and civil society, based upon existing international standards on disability, as well as other human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The proposal is aimed at covering in a "holistic" manner the three areas noted in the mandate of A/56/168, namely non-discrimination, human rights, and social development, and is intended to reflect the interdependence of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. Mexico believes that its proposal is in keeping with the Standard Rules and the World Programme of Action, and could be implemented alongside those existing instruments. It stressed that its intention in drafting a proposal was to provide a "first working document to facilitate discussion," and that it would be open to the consideration of other proposals, with the sole objective of together finding the best instrument to protect the human rights of people with disabilities.

Indonesia, the Dominican Republic and Jordan also provided statements during the morning session. Indonesia highlighted the problems of integrating disability into the existing international framework, and suggested that increased international donor aid could be helpful in resolving this issue. The Representative from the Dominican Republic expressed support for the convention development process, but added that discussions should not ignore the concerns of developing countries and countries with transitioning economies. The Representative from Jordan expressed support for the convention development process, and highlighted the need of people with disabilities to enjoy both civil and political, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. It welcomed any proposal furthering that goal, and thanked the Government of Mexico for the submission of its proposal.

Statements were provided by three NGOs in the morning session: Support Coalition International (SCI) / World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH), and Madre. In a statement on behalf of SCI and WFMH, SCI President Celia Brown set forth why a specialized convention on the rights of persons with disabilities would be beneficial for people with psychiatric disabilities. The existing international instruments "often reflect a paternalistic medical-model perspective rather than a rights-based perspective" which is an "obstacle to rights protection for persons with psychiatric disabilities." Citing the Report of the United Nations Consultative Expert Group Meeting on International Rights and Standards Relating to Disability (1998), Ms Brown stated that "'the circumstances of persons with disabilities and the discrimination they face are socially created phenomena and have little to do with the impairments of persons with disabilities.'" She identified the following principles as forming the basis for "effective rights protection for persons with psychiatric disabilities": (a) people diagnosed as having psychiatric disabilities should not be considered as having lost the "global capacity for decision-making" and should be supported as "autonomous agents of their own recovery;" (b) the provision of "a broad range of rehabilitative and alternative services in addition to medical treatments;" (c) provision of "sufficient unbiased information" to allow the individual to "choose or refuse specific treatments or services;" (d) the right to self-determination, informed consent, the right to refuse treatment, and the "right not to comply with forced admission to institutional facilities; (e) "reaffirming the principles of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), it is imperative that, as a minimum standard, psychiatric treatments must do no harm to the individual." With regard to the creation of any "Committee of Experts" associated with a convention, the members of that committee should "include adequate geographic distribution, participation by both women and men, and substantial representation by persons with disabilities, including psychiatric disabilities."

Speaking on behalf of Madre, Tina Minkowitz echoed the statement of SCI / WFMH, finding existing international standards, and in particular the Declaration on the Principles for Protection of People with Mental Illness (MI Principles), inadequate for the protection of the rights of people labeled with psychiatric disabilities. In the process of identifying the human rights issues pertaining to people with psychiatric disabilities, she stressed that "it is people labeled with psychiatric disabilities ourselves, who have been thinking about and working on these issues as a movement for the past thirty years, who have to say what these issues are." She identified the most important issues as: (a) "incarceration on the basis of disability;" (b) "forced interventions in the name of treatment;" (c) "deprivation of legal status and civil rights as a result of being subjected to psychiatric labeling;" and (d) "customary practices by communities that violate human rights by depriving us of self-determination," including "media and professional practices" that contribute to "stereotyping and bias;" (e) the "right to an adequate standard of living, to housing, and to access to supportive services controlled by the consumer, free of punitive or restrictive discriminatory conditions." Furthermore, the human rights standards contained in a convention should reflect the concerns of people with disabilities and should not discriminate between any type of disability. She cited the Mexican proposal as representing a "strong input to the process of developing a convention by building on and reinforcing the Standard Rules."

Discussions in the latter part of the Morning Session were devoted primarily to organizational matters relating to the operation of the Committee. These discussions focused on the following issues: the modalities of NGO participation; the content and timetable of work for the Committee; the extension of a formal invitation to other entities to participate in the work of the Committee; and concerns by states about the level of preparedness by delegations to participate effectively in the work of the Committee. In addition, debate also focused on whether such organizational matters needed to be resolved in full prior to the commencement of any thematic discussions.

Procedural issues

The EU and Associated Countries stated that they considered the settlement of organizational issues "vital to be decided upon before embarking on a substantive discussion." This position was supported by Canada, the United States, Norway, Australia, Cuba, Iran, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Korea. Argentina expressed its interest in settling procedural issues, but also its concern that too much time would be spent on procedural issues, and not enough time spent on substance. It supported the use of informal meetings to resolve many of the procedural issues. Chile indicated that it was mindful of the concerns of the EU and the need to deal with some of the organizational matters in order to embark upon thematic discussions. The Representative from Mexico, Luis Alfonso de Alba, believed that there was a need to embark upon a substantive discussion soon, and that this discussion could involve the examination of the Mexican proposed draft convention text. Surinam supported the position of Mexico that substantive discussions should begin shortly. Sudan, supported Mexico's call to discuss substance, but suggested that 2 days be set aside specifically to settle issues of organization and procedure.

NGO participation

The Russian Federation attached great importance to the "problem" of participation of NGOs, and suggested that while it appreciated more attention be allocated to NGOs, not only during lunchtime meetings with the Chairperson, but also during main debates. Denmark (on behalf of the EU and associated countries) called for the issue of NGO participation to be resolved within the first week. To this end, it announced that the EU and Mexico would (at an informal meeting) present a draft proposal on NGO participation. To further the participation of NGOs, and experts, and to provide the Committee with expert advice, the United States proposed that the Committee arrange an informal panel or panels of experts, so that General Assembly rules of procedure could be suspended, allowing for increased interaction with the members of civil society and other panel members. Norway and Australia supported the proposal of the United States, and the Chairperson, Luis Gallegos responded that an informal panel of experts would be convened next Tuesday. In response to the Chair's announcement, Cuba stated that states should be informed in advance of who would be invited, and that the experts should come from the broadest geographic representation as possible. In response to Cuba's concerns, the Chairperson announced that the invitation list for the Tuesday afternoon panel would be provided to states within 24 hours.

Content and timetable of Committee work

EU proposed that a timetable of work be developed, and that time be allotted to the discussion of four points: (a) "why a legally binding set of international rules should be adopted; (b) the type of legal instrument preferred; (c) how the instrument would relate to the Standard Rules and other existing human rights instruments; and (d) the kind of monitoring mechanism that would be appropriate for the convention. Norway expressly supported this proposal, and in particular the discussion on how to develop an enforceable convention. The Chairperson notified delegates that a draft timetable and draft list of thematic issues would be distributed by 6pm.

Participation by National Institutions and UN Bodies

With regard to the extension of a formal invitation from the Ad Hoc Committee to UN bodies, commissions, experts, national disability institutions, national human rights institutions, and other entities to participate in the future meetings of the Committee, this was also suggested by the EU and generally supported.

Preparedness

Iran indicated that it had received the draft text of the Mexican proposal only recently, leaving it with insufficient opportunity to translate the text and obtain instructions from its capital.

Afternoon session

Commenced 3.30pm
Suspension 4.45 - 5.30
Recessed 6.10 pm

The Chair opened the session following informal consultations, with a proposal that sought to respond to the requests by delegations in the morning session for a timetable setting forth the Organisation of Work for the rest of the Committee process. By the Thursday afternoon session it was proposed that a justification for a legally binding instrument would be necessary. Convening a panel of experts was also suggested as a way to address the concerns of delegations on the need for expert advice . A draft outline of thematic issues based on the work of Gerard Quinn, Rodrigo Jimenez, Maria Soledad Cisterna and Marcia Rioux --- was proposed and distributed by the Chair as a basis for the Committee's work in this area, to begin next week. For the last Friday of the sessions it was suggested that States should be prepared to put forward their recommendations on the way forward. The chair noted that before the timetable is prepared there has to be an acceptance of topics. The Chair assured the Committee that a timetable would be made available at the end of the session.

Debate centered around 3 issues: 1. lack of preparation, 2. NGO / NI participation, and 3. the content and timetable of work.

Lack of preparation

The Malaysian delegate raised concerns that relevant documents had not been made available, and that a detailed compilation was needed for her delegation to be prepared. The US continued to voice concern over the fact that they have not been able to get adequately prepared. The EU stated that it was unable to take a position on the latest proposal on the table because it needed "to further discuss amongst ourselves." Denmark requested the Chair for "a full proposal of a work programme for committee members" and a set of documents that they would need for that work programme."

The Chair asserted his understanding that there has already been discussion of this issue, "this is not an issue that is new," and that all relevant documents were available on the UN website. This was stressed by the South African delegate who pointed out that the discussions on the Convention had been ongoing since the end of October 2001, and that the relevant documentation had been made readily available to enable states to prepare their positions.

NGO / National institution participation

Several states expressed a need for a resolution on NGO / NI participation. The Chair stated that for the time being NGOs could be present at the meetings. Japan, Brazil, Canada and the EU emphasised that this question and other procedural issues be resolved before moving to substantive discussion. Pakistan asked after the criteria for inviting institutions and human rights organizations noting that most National Institutions are registered with WHO and most Human Rights NGOs are under ECOSOC. Canada raised questions of accessibility twice and called for the Bureau to allocate the time to ensure that documents and meetings would be made available in accessible formats for PWD.

Content and timetable of work

Several delegations responded to the proposal from the Chair on the content and timetable of work. The US asked for more time to be able to prepare recommendations to which the Chair responded that the Friday deadline did not preclude the US from drafting its recommendations before that. The US also stated that they lacked the necessary expertise and called for a panel that could lend such expertise in an interactive and informal setting lasting one session .and where the standard General Assembly rules of procedure would be suspended.

There was no resolution on the content basis for substantive discussion, whether it would be the Working Paper drafted by Mexico, the "four points" raised by the EU in the morning session, or the Draft Thematic Issues for the Work of the Ad Hoc Committee that was distributed in outline form. Upon a proposal from the Chair that the EU's four points be discussed as the EU itself had requested, the EU responded that additional consultation within the EU group was required. The EU requested more time 'to decide how they would react". On the Draft Thematic Issues Pakistan raised concerns that it contained a "lot of rights that had not been discussed" and that the broad parameters of the convention need to be agreed upon. Pakistan suggested 3 central topics: defining disability; rights that ensure that "people with a disability both permanent or curable can fully enjoy their rights"; and those rights that are specific to a disability, like "the right to a treatment or the right to a cure".

Surinam and South Africa expressed "confusion" and "disappointment" at the turn of events and asked whether "the process is being delayed". Both countries expressed support for the Mexican proposal as a means to move forward. South Africa noted that all the statements so far at the Committee proceedings, except one, were supportive of a Convention, yet "various obstacles were being put forward." South Africa compared the situation of PWD with those of other specialised groups (women and children) and stated that "we need another specialised instrument."


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