NGO Comments on the draft text
Draft article 15 - LIVING INDEPENDENTLY AND BEING INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY

Intervention by Landmine Survivors Network

May 28, 2004 – responding to the submission by Korea of Article 15 bis on women with disabilities

Landmine Survivors Network strongly supports the proposal put forward by Korea and the comments made by South Africa, Namibia, Kenya, Uganda and others. Liechtenstein has also raised important points for consideration.

Our work with women and girl landmine survivors in mine-affected countries around the world convinces us of the need to ensure that the specific barriers that women and girls with disabilities face must be addressed in this convention.

r experience is that women amputees have additional difficulties to male amputees, even if it is unintentional discrimination. We therefore encourage delegates to support this proposal.

Thank you.

Intervention by (Australian) National Association of Community Legal Centres, People with Disability Australia Incorporated, Australian Federation of Disability Organisations

Mr Chairman:

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Ad Hoc Committee.

We intervene briefly to strongly support the terms of this article. The ability to live independently in the community with the support services necessary for this to occur is fundamental to the realization of many human rights.

The continued institutionalization of people with disability remains one of the greatest abuses of our human rights. It is essential that this convention place an unequivocal obligation of State and non-State actors to cease institutionalizing people with disability, in disability specific institutions, as well as other institutional settings, such as residential aged care facilities (which is a major concern in the Australian context).

In this respect it is important that sub-paragraph (b) is strengthened to require States to eliminate institutional care, rather then merely “not oblige” people with disability to live in institutions. If institutional care is the only form of residential of accommodation available, people with disability will have no choice but to accept this form of assistance. Institutions must therefore be removed entirely from the spectrum of State provided or supported residential services. We also believe the article ought to require States to develop and implement plans to relocate people with disability who are currently institutionalised to the community along with the supports they require for successful community living.

It is also important that sub-paragraph (c) is particularized to the circumstances of families and children with disability. Children with disability must be enabled, wherever possible, to grow up in the context of a family, preferably with their birth family, but where this is not possible, in a substitute family, with the support services necessary to enable this to occur.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this intervention.