Back to: Third Session of the Ad Hoc Committee
Daily summary of discussion at the third session
27 May 2004
Language versions: French
MS Word version
UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Ad Hoc Committee Daily Summary
A service made possible by the Landmine Survivors Network
Volume 4, #4
May 27, 2004
Commenced: 10:13 PM
Adjourned: 1:02 PM
The Chair circulated a revision of Articles 1 and
2 that raised several procedural questions. Discussion of Article 12
was completed following 12 additional interventions remaining from yesterday’s
session based on both the original draft text as well as circulating
Mexican and EU drafts. Consideration of Article 15 was also completed.
ARTICLE 12: FREEDOM FROM VIOLENCE AND ABUSE
Mexico had revised their draft of this Article taking
into account the recommendations made yesterday, except for New Zealand’s.
12.1 was divided into two paragraphs incorporating ideas put forward
by the Costa Rican delegation specifying “mental or physical” abuse
of PWD, and their “economic” exploitation. In the proposed new 12.2,
in addition to the notion of protection against abuse, the words “to
prevent these forms of violence and abuse” should be added after the
listing of “appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational
and other measures to protect PWD and…” Revisions to 12.3 reflect their
Article 11 concerns regarding the special offense of “sequestering”
and abduction against PWD. Other changes involve judicial guarantees.
Mexico’s proposed new 12.6 incorporates the important idea of monitoring
visits to public and private sector facilities.
Serbia-Montenegro expressed support for the EU's proposed
Article 12 revisions, and for the NZ intervention stressing “economic
exploitation,” and the conditions and environment under which PWD subjected
to violence should experience recovery and social integration.
China reported resolution of its concerns yesterday
regarding Article 12 amendment statements, following post-meeting consultation
with the Secretariat and subsequent reflection in the conference overhead
screen display. China noted that even though different delegations may
propose the same amendments, they may have different grounds for these
proposals. China expressed the hope that in recording amendments, the
Secretariat can fully reflect the input of all delegations.
The Chair requested any delegation with concerns about
amended language displayed on the screen to approach the Secretariat
for verification. Proposed changes should be submitted to the Secretariat
in writing to assist in "fine-tuning" the document's wording.
Canada proposed two amendments to the current text
to ensure sufficient flexibility where necessary and so that appropriate
safeguards are in place. In 12.2, after “disabilities from” Canada proposed
the exception: “abduction, and save in exceptional circumstances according
to a procedure with appropriate safeguards established by law, intrusive
or forced.” The word “impairment” should be replaced by “disabilities.”
In 12.6, “ensure” should be replaced by “encourage,” due to states’
difficulty in ensuring identification and reporting of abuse when victims
prefer not to or refuse to report. Consistent with suggestions from
other delegations, “treatment” should be replaced by “prosecution.”
Norway supported previous speakers’ suggestions to
delete the first sentence of 12.1, which is preambular. 12.3 could also
be streamlined to avoid reiteration of 12.1.
Trinidad-Tobago noted the EU and latest Mexican proposals
regarding Article 12, and agreed with the need for streamlining to reduce
repetition. The EU’s proposal to delete the first sentence of12.1 would
remove recognition of the important fact that PWD are at greater risk
both inside and outside the home; therefore the revised Mexican proposal,
which retains the sentence, is preferable. The text should clarify whether
the provision for "protection services" refers to both perpetrators
and victims of violence and abuse; since the Article is for the protection
of PWD, it should focus on the needs of victims, but if the WG intended
to address both, this provision would be better placed in 12.4 of the
Eritrea suggested that the first three lines of 12.1
could be better articulated in the Preamble, and supported Mexico's
proposals to add to 12.1 the words “mental or physical" and “economic
Morocco expressed general agreement with 12.1, and
the willingness to work with other delegations streamlining the language
to avoid repetition or non-essential portions. Paragraph 12.4 deals
with monitoring of facilities and programs to prevent violence or abuse,
and is a very important part of this Article.
Ireland, on behalf of the European Union (EU), supported
various delegations' suggestions for moving the first sentence of 12.1
to the Preamble. It is a fact that PWD are at greater risk of violence,
but states’ obligations to protect PWD from violence regardless of the
degree of risk should be made clear.
Sierra Leone stated that the first two lines of the
Article are important facts, and could either be left in the Preamble,
or placed as a chapeau for all the paragraphs, perhaps beginning with
"Recognizing that PWD are at greater risk, States Parties shall
take measures A, B, C, D, etc.”
Palestine proposed changing paragraph 6 by adding
“and foreign occupation”after “including violence arising from armed
Philippines recommended inserting “rehabilitation”
between “physical and psychological recovery” and “social reintegration"
in 12.5, because there “can be no reintegration into mainstream society
Trinidad-Tobago supported the revised Mexican proposal.
It appears that the WG's intent in 12.6 was to relate to both the perpetrator
and the victim. The concept of protection services should be contained
in one paragraph dealing with the interests of the victim. Thus, 12.4
of the new Mexican draft should be amended to read, “States Parties
shall take all appropriate measures to promote the physical and psychological
recovery and social reintegration of PWD who are victims of any form
of violence and abuse, including through the provision of protection
services. “ That concept should be deleted from from Mexican text 12.5.
In the EU proposal, as well as the latest Mexican text, the idea of
provision of support for PWD and their families, found in WG 12.3, has
been omitted. Thus, it is proposed that the last line of the Mexican
text’s 12.2 read, ”…ensuring, inter alia, support for PWD and their
families or caregivers, and the provision of information.” The phrase
“or caregivers” is added to provide for different societal structures
The floor was opened for comments from NGOs.
National Human Rights Institution insisted that Articles
11 and 12 should remain as separate Articles, because the focus of 12
is on abuse and violence, which occur far too often in the lives of
PWD. The Moroccan proposals regarding monitoring mechanisms should be
supported. New or existing monitoring mechanisms similar to national
human rights institutions could contribute immensely to monitoring the
violations articulated in Article 12.
Australia Disability, Inc., intervening jointly on
behalf of the National Association of Community Legal Centres of Australia,
People with Disabilities, Inc. Australia, and the Australian Federation
of Disability Organisations, strongly supported Article 12 content with
following amendments. Harassment, victimisation, emotional and mental
abuse, and economic exploitation should be added to the types of abuse
specified in 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, and 12.5. Violence and abuse -- especially
mental and emotional -- often go unrecognized. Inclusion in this document
will assist in highlighting these forms of abuse. The Article should
contain acknowledgment that PWD who are women, children, indigenous,
or have multiple and severe impairments are subject to even greater
levels of abuse. The Article should also address the systemic exclusion
of PWD from public programs, information and services, and should aim
to reduce exposure to violence in emergency, residential and other short-term
support services provided to persons escaping violent situations. The
Article should include a paragraph guaranteeing violence prevention
and relief services are fully accessible to PWD. The 12.1 phrase, “…in
and out of the home” should be replaced with “all aspects of life.”
The multiple Article 12 references to State responsibilities could be
consolidated in a new paragraph for clarity. A separate article should
deal with the human rights of PWD in emergency situations, such as refugees.
World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
(WNUSP) referred to its comments yesterday regarding the need, in Article
11, for strong language to prevent "forced institutionalization
and interventions to correct, improve, or alleviate any impairment."
WNUSP supported Liechtenstein’s argument for including this language
in both Articles 11 and 12. Article 11 addresses the need to eliminate
these types of intervention entirely, while Article 12 deals with the
fact that forced interventions can also take place in private institutions
by private individuals; therefore it should remain in both Articles
for the time being. Regarding the EU's comments comparing language in
Article 11 and 12 to that in Article 21, the latter’s language is from
the proposed Supplement to the Standard Rules. The phrase “medical or
related interventions” might be too vague for this kind of instrument.
Certain kinds of interventions are not necessarily medical. For example,
the abuse of a child with a disability “in the belief they are going
to get the devil out of him" would be covered by the proposed WG
text language, “forced interventions aimed at correcting any actual
or perceived impairments.”
Save the Children (SCF) agreed with Morocco and the
NHRI that violence should be addressed in its own Article, and supported
the statements made by Mexico and India. It reiterated SCF’s position
(available at www.savethechildren.org.uk) that children with disabilities
(CWD) must have the same protection as adults with disabilities because
of the added concern of corporal punishment. SCF proposed the following
additional sentence at the end of 12.1: “In addition, these measures
shall acknowledge the equal rights of children to protection from all
forms of violence and abuse.” It also recommended an additional paragraph
at 2.2: “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to establish
child protection mechanisms which are accessible to CWD, including information
on accessing help, training of all relevant professionals, introduction
of child protection policies in all institutions, parent education programmes,
and safe reporting procedures.” Children with disabilities are vulnerable
to violence and abuse, and “have no way to report independently, and
if they report, they are at great risk.”
WNUSP added to its intervention, opposing the addition
of the exception proposed by the EU allowing for legalisation of forced
interventions under certain circumstances. Delegates should reject this
Ireland inquired on behalf of the EU regarding the
Bureau’s procedure for circulating amendments to the draft text. With
regard to the latest version of “Proposed Modifications to Articles
1 to 11” dated 26 May 2004, the EU noted that its amendment to Article
7, for a new Draft Article 3 (bis), was not included even though there
was a substantive discussion that received support.
The Chair clarified that the Proposed Modifications
was a service of the Secretariat responding to delegations’ requests
to have all contributions during debate displayed on the Conference
screen and available in an accessible electronic format. The Chair consulted
with the Secretariat on the machinery to tackle the issue of the placement
of the EU amendments within the technical limitations of the Secretariat.
He noted that these consolidated proposals seek to “synthesise overlapping
or broadly similar proposals and to set out the range of options that
have been put forward.“ Where the consolidated text does not explicitly
include specific proposals it indicates where it substantially covers
them. In this case, the EU’s proposals might be more appropriately covered
in other draft articles. The Secretariat is following the WG structure
of the draft text and for this reason there is some difficulty incorporating
the EU proposals. The Proposed Modifications are technical, secretarial
drafting documents and have no substantive value other than to be an
aid to the negotiations. The Chair noted “There has been no limitation
on what a national or NGO delegation has said in this hall, and I think
that is a recognition of the transparency and democracy of the United
Ireland noted that since its modifications to Articles
4 and 5 had been incorporated it would expect those in relation to Article
7 to be incorporated as well, given that they represent the position
of a large group of countries. Ireland also inquired whether any “formal,
coordinated, informal discussions” were taking place. Finally, it sought
clarification on the status of the “non-paper” on Articles 1 and 2.
The Chair was not aware of any coordinating exercise
under the guidance of the Chair, only of EU and other similar regional
coordination. He affirmed the EU’s reference to the document on Articles
1 and 2 as a “non-paper.”
Norway inquired whether the non-paper on Articles
1 and 2 was intended to be the basis for any possible further negotiations
on this paragraph if time allows at end of this AHC.
The Chair emphasised that the basis of the AHC discussion
is the WG document, according to the Legal Department of UN. Therefore
the document on Articles 1 and 2 is only a “non-paper” that will “conduct
us to informal consultations” upon completion of a first reading of
the WG text. This might move the process faster.
Sierra Leone was unclear at the notion of a first reading.
He inquired as to where the attention of the AHC was now focused - on
the non paper or on the footnotes of the WG text, highlighting the fact
that Draft Article 1 in the non paper was entirely different from what
the WG proposed. He reminded the delegations that the footnotes in the
WG text are not arbitrary inclusions, but there for guidance.
Trinidad and Tobago addressed the EU’s concern about
the coordinator of discussions and asserted that there are no formally
coordinated and formal discussions taking place.
The Chair noted that there have been other elements
added to the WG text in this larger plenary of the AHC. Informals will
be conducted on the basis of the WG text and on the inputs of all other
delegations. He clarified that New Zealand is the coordinator of discussions.
Mexico suggested that in order to avoid speculation
about the text, the Committee should do a first reading of all substantive
Articles and then do a second round of more detailed consideration of
the Articles in conjunction with NGOs.
Malaysia expressed strong reservations about the possibility
of having separate discussions or negotiations during the plenary meetings,
and expressed appreciation for the transparency and full participation
in the meetings so far.
The Chair called the Vice President from the Philippines
to preside while the Chair withdrew to consult with delegations. The
Chair reaffirmed that this is a technical document and that the Committee
is working in a transparent venue.
DRAFT ARTICLE 13: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OPINION, AND ACCESS
Yemen proposed that Article 13(c) should add “and
providing opportunities for those concerned with persons with disabilities
to be educated in augmentative and alternative communication modes.”
Also, Yemen suggested in 13(f) to replace “encouraging” with “obliging,”
and noted that governments can use their authority, including taxation,
to compel private entities to provide accessible communications.
Sierra Leone stated that this is a technical Article
but an important one that involves the capacity to access technology,
which most PWD in Africa lack. So before making any specific recommendation
for this Article, Sierra Leone requested that those countries that have
technological expertise assist it in understanding technological terms.
Sierra Leone directed the Committee’s attention to footnote 42, which
discusses plain language, and stated that this discussion might be too
technical for some states, and if they are going to be involved, they
would like assistance, based on the report of the WG, to understand
these terms. Sierra Leone then directed the attention of the WG to footnote
41 and asked the Committee whether it preferred using the term “mode
of communication” or “format.”
Lebanon stated that in light of footnote 43 language
should be appended to 13(e) to provide for the provision and training
of assistants and intermediaries such as sign language and tactile interpreters,
note-takers, readers, and others. It also supported Yemen's proposal
for 13(c), and then proposed a further amendment to 13(c), to add after
“educating PWD,” the words “and non-disabled persons wishing to communicate
with PWD.” Lebanon then proposed a new paragraph related to inclusiveness:
“States Parties will take all appropriate measures to ensure that accessible
information and communication technologies be designed, developed and
produced at an early stage so that the information society becomes inclusive
at minimum cost.”
Trinidad and Tobago supported this Article, as information
technologies can pose barriers to PWD in developing countries, and supported
Yemen’s amendment to 13(c) but with “their families and the general
public” appearing after “educating PWD.” It also recommended that “and
public” be added after “private” in the text of 13(f).
Namibia proposed the deletion of “on request in a
timely manner,” as documents should be accessible to everyone at all
times. When “on request” and “in a timely manner” are used, issues of
funding might be used by States to claim that that it is not possible
to make documents accessible. Namibia supported the proposal by Yemen
for 13(f), that private agencies should also be obliged to provide information
to the public in accessible formats. Namibia supported Yemen’s comments
about the mass media, and also supported Lebanon’s proposal.
Japan stated that although it understood the thrust
of 13(a), it noted that governments may sometimes leave the task of
translation to private organizations. Therefore Japan suggested substituting
“Taking appropriate steps to provide public information” for “Providing
public information.” This would leave room for interpretation as to
whether the government or private organizations should do translation
in any given case. Japan suggested that 13(e) would be more appropriately
placed in Article 19.
Argentina proposed amending 13(a) to add “and technologies”
after “accessible formats,” and to substitute “and technologies appropriate
to different disabilities” for “taking into account different kinds
Ireland, on behalf of the EU, suggested amending 13(a)
to replace “public" with “official” in describing the type of information
that States Parties should provide. The EU also suggested deleting the
words “of their choice,” as sometimes it may not be viable to have a
choice of formats. The EU proposed a new beginning for 13(d), “Promoting
and where appropriate undertaking the research,” as it may not be necessary
for States to undertake research that may already be undertaken in other
countries or by organizations.
Thailand supported the WG draft but suggested the
deletion of “on request,” as there may not always be time for PWD to
make requests. Thailand also proposed substituting, in 13(f), .“Requiring”
or “Ensuring” for “Encouraging,” as this document is not a policy statement,
it is a legally binding document and “encouraging” is not a strong enough
Costa Rica expressed concern that the title of the
Article might limit access to and development of rights. It therefore
suggested that the title be changed to “Right to information and communication.”
Ensuring access is an important component of the right to information.
The EU has developed that entitlement to communication as a fundamental
right and urged the Committee to further develop and incorporate this
concept in the WG draft. Costa Rica suggested modifications to the chapeau,
to read as follows: “States Parties undertake to ensure the enjoyment
of the right to information and communication to PWD. In this regard
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons
with disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression
and opinion through alternative modes of communication of their choice,
where appropriate, including Braille, sign language and to seek, receive
and impart information, on conditions of equality, including by...”
Costa Rica then addressed 13(c), stating that discussing only teaching
or education seemed “paternalistic” and suggested amending 13(c) to
read as follows: “Providing education programmes aimed at teaching PWD
and their families in the use of alternative and augmentative modes
of communication.” It further suggested appending to 13(e) the words
including training of interpreters, and access to new information and
communication technologies." The digital divide does not just run
north and south, but also exists within the south, and affects PWD who
do not have access to technologies.
Canada stated that the ideas expressed in Article
13 are important for the full equal participation of PWD, but felt that
components of Article 13 overlap with provisions of Article 19 and would
suggest that the two Articles be considered together, taking into account
the provision of reasonable accommodation. It further suggested that
“suitable for PWD” be replaced with “in consultation with PWD” in order
to bring PWD into the process of research and development of technologies
which would make technologies and products more accessible. In the chapeau,
the words “on an equal footing” should be replaced by “on the basis
of equality with others.”
Korea supported Costa Rica in its proposal for 13(e)
and Lebanon for its ideas about training interpreters, and proposed
adding, after the words "people with disabilities," the words
“including expanding the necessary level of expertise to assist persons
Israel supported Costa Rica, especially in its rewording
of the chapeau. Israel stated that the title deals with two separate,
but equally important issues, and proposed changing the title of the
Article to “The right of access to information,” because it feels that
this Article deals with the means to ensure accessibility to information
and to facilitate the exercise of freedom of expression.
Uganda stated that it would like the word communication
to be defined, and that this definition could be transferred to the
definition Article (3). Uganda suggested the following definition: “oral,
aural communication, communication using sign language, finger Braille,
Braille, large print, audio, accessible multimedia, human readers, and
other augmentative modes of communication, including accessible information
and communication technology.” Uganda also proposed inserting in 13(e)
“and where necessary their parents and caregivers” after PWD, and in
13(f) replacing "Encouraging" with “Ensuring."
Uganda proposed a new paragraph, 13(h): “Developing
a national sign language,” as in many countries there have been no steps
taken toward the important goal of developing a national sign language.
Mexico stressed the fundamental importance of this
Article. It supported Costa Rica's proposals both for the chapeau and
for the title. It supported the proposals of Japan, Namibia, and the
EU to make a reference to information of an official, rather than of
a public, nature. In 13(b) Mexico recommended inserting “and promoting”
after “accepting.” Mexico then proposed a new paragraph, “Promoting
that persons with disabilities enjoy the new information and telecommunication
South Africa supported the content of the chapeau
as it seeks to ensure that States take practical measures, and proposed
adding a new paragraph, “Providing information to persons with disabilities
about mobility aids, devices and other forms of assistive devices and
technologies.” South Africa recommended that 13(e) be placed in the
Article on accessibility and supported Uganda’s proposal for including
families and caregivers.
Jordan stated that this Article focuses more on the
means of freedom of expression rather than the freedom itself. As a
result, Jordan stated that the chapeau needs to be strengthened to reflect
this right, that there is a need to reorder the subparagraphs, and that
there is duplication between this Article and Article 19. In regard
to 13(d), research and development are issues of general concern and
should be placed in the Article on obligations (4) so that it would
apply to all articles. Jordan suggested replacing all instances of the
word “Encouraging” with a stronger word such as “Requiring” or “Ensuring."
Jordan proposed the substitution of “Providing education and learning
to” for “Educating” in 13(c), as it considers learning to be interactive,
while education is more passive.
New Zealand supported most of the WG text but shared
Sierra Leone's concern about the confusing use of such terms as format,
mode of communication, and alternative and augmentative communication.
The WG had had difficulty in distinguishing among these terms. New Zealand
then suggested that “alternative,” which may have a pejorative connotation,
be replaced in all instances with “a variety of." It also suggested
deleting the word “augmentative” in all instances from the text, because
“augmentative” is one specific mode of communication, and placing it
alongside "alternative" in the text gives augmentative communication
a “greater status” than other forms. New Zealand also supported the
EU's proposal to delete “of their choice” from the chapeau, and the
EU's proposed rewording of 13(d).
Philippines proposed the addition of “affordable”
after “suitable” in 13(d).
India supported Costa Rica's proposed amendment to
the chapeau, and the inclusion of families in the text. India also supported
the title proposed by Israel, but recommended appending to it the words
“and to promote facility of expression."
Morocco supported Yemen’s proposal for 13(c). It suggested
adding “nor taxes” after “additional costs” in 13(a), as taxes on technologies
can sometimes reach 150%, which may prevent PWD from accessing needed
instruments and supported.
Kuwait supported the title proposed by Costa Rica,
and Yemen's proposed additions in 13(a) with respect to families and
caregivers. The words “on request” should be deleted from 13(a).
Viet Nam supported Costa Rica's proposed title, and
Uganda’s proposal on the development of national sign language. Viet
Nam also stressed the necessity to develop an international sign language.
Kenya supported replacing “Encouraging” in 13(f) and
(g) with imperative language so that States will find it necessary to
encourage private actions that will enable PWD to communicate. It also
supported the idea that parents and caregivers must be able to learn
appropriate modes of communication so that PWD can communicate with
the rest of society. The Convention should include language supporting
non-disabled people's opportunities to learn Braille, sign language,
and other appropriate modes of communication. The Committee must focus
not only on high-profile disability sectors, such as blindness and deafness,
but must also take into account other disabilities.
Bahrain affirmed the need to educate and support both
PWD and those associated with them, including caregivers. For example,
a recent effort to teach sign language to hospital nurses had been “a
Liechtenstein agreed with Costa Rica's proposal for
the chapeau, but suggested replacing “ alternative modes” with “appropriate
modes.” It agreed with other delegations that 13(d) is not specific
to freedom of expression and access to information and therefore does
not need to appear in this Article. Liechtenstein proposed that 13(f)
and (g) be merged by replacing “private entities” in 13(f) with “private
and public entities, including the mass media.”
Thailand offered a history behind the drafting of
Article 13 and the differences between it and Article 19. Article 13
was viewed as the mechanism to achieve freedom of expression; access
to communication at that point was not viewed as a standalone right
per se. When the WG got to Article 19, it made accessibility a disability
specific issue that needed much attention. The repetitions between Articles
13 and 19 should be worked out; both Articles are important, but they
need to be clarified so they can stand on their own. In 13(d) “suitable”
should be replaced with “accessible,” and at the end of the paragraph
should be added the words “guided by the principle of universal design.”
The Chair opened the floor for comments from NGOs.
National Human Rights Institutions supported Israel's
suggestion that accessible information may be separated from this Article,
as it is a means to achieve freedom of expression. Means to achieve
access, and the obligations of States Parties, may differ considerably.
Regarding the concerns of States Parties on the financial implications
this Article entails, NHRI drew States' attention to their important
role in regulating standards of basic communication, telecommunication,
media and broadcast systems. States have a very important duty to guarantee
these freedoms by creating standards for barrier-free information production,
distribution, and services. States which do not already have accessibility
standards may benefit from the experience of States which do have such
World Federation of the Deaf stated that it consulted
linguists at many universities around the world about the definition
of language and proposed the following definition:
"The systematic use of sounds, signs, or written symbols to represent
things, actions, ideas, and states, shared and understood by members
of a linguistic community.” The language of footnote 40 should be included
in the Article. WFD recommending deleting “sign language” from the chapeau
of this Article, as sign language is a natural language rather than
another “mode of communication." The Deaf community is a linguistic
minority whose freedom of expression and equal access to information
requires the recognition of sign language as its first language. While
linguists and social psychologists view the Deaf community as a linguistic
minority, society at large does not recognize this. Many people have
misconceptions about sign language, believing that it slows speech development
and segregates Deaf people. WFD supported New Zealand’s proposal to
use “a variety of” instead of “alternative.”
Commenced: 3:09 PM
Adjourned: 5:50 PM
The AHC finished the morning discussion of Article 13 and completed
discussion on Article 14.
ARTICLE 13: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OPINION, AND ACCESS TO
WFDB stated that the right of freedom to expression
is very important to deaf-blind people because many have no means to
express themselves or are not understood. Many deaf-blind people endure
forced measures, abuse and torture to deaf-blind due to communication
barriers. The right to communicate needs to be in this paragraph. The
right to form an opinion requires access to appropriate information,
which many deaf-blind do not have because of the lack of interpreters
and the amount of information. This is a very technical paragraph. "Mode
of communication" leaves out some things, such as does not cover
everything, tactile communication. The phrase "mode of communication"
should be replaced by "means of communication," and footnote
43 should be added .
PWD Australia/NACLC/AFDO stated that Braille, sign,
augmentative, and plain language is very important in creating the means
to exercise civil and political rights.
Accessible means of communication is only one dimension of the freedom
of expression. It suggested addressing accessible means of communication
in Article 18 or Article 19 or by adding in the chapeau "freedom
of expression and opinion includes the right to communicate by accessible
means." Paragraph 13(b) needs to be strengthened to recognize that
sign language is a language. It supported the Bangkok draft which requires
that accessible means of communication be provided in a timely manner
and without additional cost. Easy language format also needs to be an
obligation of States. It proposed changing "equal footing"
to "on equal terms" in the chapeau and in (f), changing "encouraging"
to "requiring" that non-State actors will be bound by this
Inclusion international stated that PWD are sometimes
not allowed the basic right to decide. PWD know what is best for themselves
and they need to access information presented in uncomplicated words,
short sentences and and sometimes pictures so that it is easy to follow.
Information needs to accessible for everyone so that everyone can participate
in decision making.
Save the Children supported WFDB and II. Children
with disabilities are denied access to information and the right to
express themselves. States need to provide this information. In 13(a),
it proposed adding “Providing public information to PWDs including providing
age-appropriate information for children with disabilities on request
in a timely manner and without additional cost in accessible format
and technologies of their choice taking into account different kind
of disabilities." It suggested an additional paragraph after 13(a),
as follows: "Enabling children and adults to communicate on an
equal footing with others by providing extra time to access, reflect
and act upon information by providing plain information and facilitating
augmentative and alternative modes of communication"; and another
paragraph as follows: "Enabling children and adults to appoint
a representative if alternative modes of communication don”t suffice
to express and participate on an equal footing."
ARTICLE 14: RESPECT FOR PRIVACY, THE HOME AND THE FAMILY
Yemen proposed, in 14.2(b), adding "motherhood
or" before "maternity." In both 14.2(a) and 14.2(b),
it proposed adding at the end : "in accordance with the precepts
of religion, convictions and various customs" because otherwise
it limits equality. In 14.2(c), after family planning, and "sexuality."
In 14.2(d), after "adoption," add "or guardianship."
In Islam, there is no adoption, but guardianship is allowed. In 14.1,
after "institutions," add "should they have decided to
do so." The Arab Group agreed with these changes.
Iran proposed that 14.2(a) and (b) be merged without
losing the main elements. It would add to the end of 14.2(b) the words
"and experience their sexuality and parenthood." If this is
done, 14.2(a) should be deleted because 14.2(b) would now include 14.2(a).
India proposed that in 14.1, "communication"
replaced "correspondence" as suggested in footnote 45. Nearly
all subsequent speakers agreed with this change (Kenya suggested “communication
including correspondence"). The individual statements supporting
this change will not be repeated in these minutes. Under 14.2(b), India
proposed adding "under appropriate law" after "marry,"
and replacing "found a family" with "bring up a family,
and be provided with information and counselling wherever necessary
on the full dimension and responsibilities of marriage." In 14.2(c),
India would remove "have" and replace it with "be provided
with." It proposed deleting the last sentence in 14.2(d), because
the right is guaranteed so it is redundant. Also, 14.2(e) should be
moved to Article 16 on children and should cohere to the CRC; the parenthood
rights of PWD is already dealt with in the early paragraphs.
Japan stated that 14.1 is not limited to PWD so in
the last sentence, after "disabilities," the words "equally
with others persons" should be added. In 14.2(e), it proposed removing
"either directly or indirectly," and adding "all kinds
of their disabilities."
The Holy See proposed that 14.2(a), 2(b), and 2(c)
be merged and read as follows: "The right of men and women with
disabilities of marriageable age to marry and found a family shall be
recognized and no marriage shall be entered into without the free and
full consent of the intending spouses." (ICCPR Article 23.2 and
23.3). The rest of the language is not found in any international Conventions.
The ideas in 14.2(f) may be moved to Article 5.
Argentina proposed making 14.1 and 14.2 two separate
Articles. Paragraph 14.1 addresses privacy of home and family, and 14.2
addresses elimination of discrimination in marriage and family relations,
consistent with the ICCPR. In 14.1, change "privacy" to "private
life." With regard to 14.2 change "shall ensure" to "shall
take appropriate measures aimed at (or with a view to)." In the
Spanish version, 14.2(b) refers to the consent of one spouse; therefore,
this should changed to the plural. It agreed with footnote 49 which
says that some States Parties may have difficulties gaining resources
for adequate assistance. Argentina supported deleting the last sentence
in 14.2(e) which reads "The child shall not however be separated
from parents with disabilities on the basis either directly or indirectly
of their disability," because these decisions should be controlled
Uganda proposed replacing the last sentence in 14.2(e)
with "States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents
of children with disabilities to enable their children to live with
Philippines supported the positions of India and the
Holy See. In 14.2(a) it proposed adding "That PWD are not denied
the equal opportunity to experience their sexuality, have responsible
sex lives, and other intimate relationships and experience parenthood,
taking into account the best interests of the woman and the child."
Kenya stated that sterilizations should be done only
with consent, because many people with mental disabilities have been
sterilized without their knowledge; States should encourage sexual abstinence.
In 14.2(c), Kenya supported keeping "on an equal basis with other
persons," and adding "including protection against non-consensual
Jordan proposed that 14.2(f) be moved to Article 5.
In 14.2(e), the words "or the disability of their children"
should be added at the end of the sentence.
Ireland, speaking on behalf of the EU, supported "private
life" instead of "privacy," as Argentina suggested in
14.1. For clarity, "freedom of choice" should replace "choice"
in the last sentence. Ireland opposed the proposals of Iran, the Holy
See and Philippines to alter 14.2(a), 2(b), and 2(c). It supported deleting
"on an equal basis with other persons" in 14.2(c), because
this phrase allows for limitation of that right. It suggested making
14.2(d), 2(e), and 2(f) into their own paragraphs. The first part of
14.2(d) should be changed to "States Parties to this Convention
shall ensure that there is no discrimination against PWD in regard to..."
The phrase "disabled parents" in the second sentence should
be changed to "parents with disabilities." In 14.2(e), the
phrase "directly and directly" should be replaced by "solely."
Ireland recommends rewording 14.2(f), as follows: "States Parties
shall take appropriate measures to change negative perceptions and social
prejudices towards sexuality, marriage and parenthood of persons with
China proposed that 14.2(b) should be changed to read:
"The right of PWDs who are of marriageable age to marry and to
found a family on a equal basis with other persons." Referring
to "persons" instead of "men and women" is more
consistent with rest of Convention. The emphasis is on equality so "equal
basis" applies to restrictions on marriage also. Subparagraph 14.2(f)
should become its own Paragraph 14.3. China proposed new language for
14.2(f), as follows: "States Parties shall take effective and appropriate
measures to raise public awareness and provide information to change
negative perception and social prejudices towards sexuality, marriage
and parenthood of persons with disabilities." It proposed a new
title: "Respect for privacy, marriage and family."
Syria favored adding, at the end of 14.1, the words
"through legitimate marriage" and changing the word "adoption"
Australia supported EU”s position and China in regard
to 14.2(b). It prefers 14.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) not be merged. It supported
deleting, in 14.2(e), "directly and indirectly," and moving
14.2(f) to another part of the Convention.
South Africa suggested a new title, "Respect
for Privacy," because the Article concerns not only privacy in
the home and family, but more broadly. In 14.1, it suggested changing
"personal matter" to "private matter." Respect for
Privacy should include all protections under the UDHR, Article 12. Under
14.2(b), it proposed substituting "rights of all people with disabilities,"
for "all men and women." It supported footnote 46; 14.2 should
include marriage, family and any other relations, including people who
are living together. In 14.2(d) it supported deleting the last sentence
so that the Convention doesn”t treat PWD differently. South Africa recommended
amending 14.2(e) as follows: "The child should not, however, be
separated from parents with disabilities on the basis either directly
or indirectly of their disability."
Canada opposed the amendments of Holy See because
equal opportunity to experience sexuality, and the right to decide number
and spacing of children, are vital. In 14.1, it proposed deleting "including
those living in institutions," because this Article applies to
all PWD no matter where they live. In 14.2(b), "informed"
should be replaced by "full."
Costa Rica supported Argentina in creating two Articles
because two issues are covered, privacy and marriage. In 14.1, "shall
have the right" should be changed to "shall." After the
term "interference" should be added "in all fields,"
because this would address any interference in the life of the PWD.
It proposed removing from 14.1 "privacy in the home, family,"
and adding "... communication, information, and documentation of
PWD." The focus of the Convention is on PWD, not other persons
living with them. Costa Rica proposed adding 14 (bis), a separate article
titled, "Respect for families and relations of the couple (or intimate
relationships)." In the chapeau of 14.2, it suggested adding "couple
relations" after "family relations." To speak only of
marriage is too limiting and this Convention should not limit rights.
In 14.2(a), the last line, in English, refers to parenthood, but in
Spanish the translation is fatherhood; it suggested changing this to
"experience maternity and paternity." Costa Rica proposed
amending 14.2(b) as follows: "The right of all men and women with
disabilities to establish couple relationship or intimate relationships
including marriage, to develop these relationships fully and to find
a family on the basis of free full and reciprocal consent." The
term "spouse" is too limiting. It proposed 14.2(b) (bis):
"The rights of persons with disabilities to reproduction, prohibiting
all practices aimed at involuntary sterilization and/or inhibiting the
exercise of the right to reproduction on the basis of prejudices about
persons with disabilities." The same translation issue as 14.2(a)
applies to 14.2(c); Costa Rica favored the term "boys and and girls"
in the Spanish text and keeping "on an equal basis," and deleting
"with other persons." In 14.2(d), the last part beginning
with "for the purpose of guaranteeing these rights" should
be deleted because this could create discrimination. Again in 14.2(e),
the Spanish translation needs to include both genders and Costa Rica
favored deleting "directly and indirectly," but there is no
need to add "solely," as this could lead to discrimination.
There is a translation problem in 14.2(f) which must be corrected: "States
shall promote" is correct. In 14.2(f), it proposed deleting "marriage,"
and adding "intimate relations including marriage and parenthood
of PWD." Since 14.2(b) refers to "intimate relationships,"
it should not include reference to marriageable age; this article speaks
about men and women, not boys and girls, so marriageable age is assumed.
A mention of age could be acceptable, but not solely for marriage.
New Zealand proposed a positive amendment regarding
forced sterilization, adding to 14.2(c) “retain their fertility, “ before
“decide freely." Since the intention is for PWD to have the same
rights as others, the first three words of 14.2(d), “the rights of"
should be replaced with "That, so that the sentence would begin
"That PWD have the same rights as other persons..." New Zealand
agreed to the Philippines' proposal to refer to the "best interests
of child," but not in 14.2(a) because this addresses sexual relations
and the reference could be misconstrued. Instead, at the end of the
first sentence of 14.2(d) should be added the following: "; and
all cases, the best interests of the child shall be paramount."
This is consistent with CEDAW 16.1(f).
With respect to 14.2(a), 2(b), 2(c), and 2(d), they need to stay separate.
If the AHC accepts Iran”s suggestion, the value of 14.2(a) would be
diminished. Under the UDHR and ICCPR, PWD have the right to marry. Yemen”s
proposal to include religious considerations contradicts the UDHR, Article
16, and would give PWD fewer rights than other people. Likewise, the
Committee should not support India”s suggestions to add counseling,
because this implies a precondition for marriage that does not apply
to other people; it may be tenable in another Article. The change in
14.2(c), "and the means necessary to exercise these rights"
is found in CEDAW already so it does not support this addition as it
may imply different rights. It also pointed out that the Holy See”s
proposal is in fact not a merger, but a deletion of 14.2(a) and 2(c),
which it cannot support.
Qatar suggested replacing 14.1 with "PWD shall
not be subjected to any coercive practice or illegal practice,"
as in the CRC. In 14.2, after, "effective and appropriate measures"
should be added "with a view of encouraging the full participation
of persons with disabilities in family life." Also, 14.2(a) should
be replaced with: "To encourage measures intended to eliminate
social stereotypes concerning marriage of PWD, in particular, the young
women with disabilities, the right to sexuality and to form a family.”
It favored encouraging the media to help eliminate stereotypes. In 14.2(b),
it proposed replacing Afound a family" with "To establish
family relations.” It supported Yemen”s proposal to delete adoption
and add guardianship. It favored adding “within available resources”
at the end of 14.2(d). Because 14.2(f) is contained in its proposed
14.2(a), it should be deleted.
Mexico remarked that the title needs changing; it
suggested expanding. It supported footnote 46, expanding the scope to
marriage and family relations. The second line of 14.2 chapeau should
be amended to add: “all matters relating to their private life, including
. . .” so it does not just include marriage, but all aspects of private
life. It agreed with New Zealand that other treaties should be recognized,
including CEDAW, CRC in 14.2(a) and (b). In 14.2(c), it agreed to delete
“on an equal basis with other persons” because it is redundant. It also
agreed with the need to explicitly prohibit forced sterilizations: “States
Parties shall also ensure that persons with disabilities are not subject
to forced sterilization.” In 14.2(d) Mexico supported the inclusion
of the second sentence because it is in the CRC; this should not be
an excessive burden on the States. It proposed to change the order of
14.2(e), the second sentence should go at the beginning and "directly
or indirectly" should be deleted. In order to safeguard people
with mental disabilities, it proposed for paragraph 14.3: “The provisions
of this Convention shall apply to persons with mental disabilities,
whenever there is no prejudice to the protection granted through legislation,
national norms and procedures relating to their legal capacity or which
are specifically designed to offer them legal protection, to ensure
their physical integrity and to protect their dignity.
Libya remarked that that in 14.2(a), the term “sexual
relationships” is not used in other UN documents and there is always
controversy when it is used in a text. In its understanding, sexual
relationships are only in marital relationships. It proposed adding
to 14.2(b) after the word “sexuality,” “within the framework of married
life,” thus deleting sexual relationships.
Bahrain endorsed Yemen”s proposal to replace “adoption”
with “guardianship” in 14.2(d).
Norway supported retaining 14.2(a), (b) and (c) because
they contain important concepts including experiencing sexuality. 14.2(e)
is unclear without the EU”s proposed changes. It may support Mexico”s
Russian Federation remarked that 14.2(d) needs to
reflect the realities of guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption
of children when it addresses PWD. In our country, if an adult is injured
or has a disease and can not work, then that person is prohibited by
national law from adopting. The following amendment was recommended:
"These rights may be restricted in exclusive situations specifically
stipulated in national legislation."
Morocco supported the deletion of “including those
living in institutions” because all PWD are covered in 14.1. There are
some good amendments to consider on 14.2(a) and (b). In 14.2(c), after
“access to information," Morocco would add "advice.” It remarked
that it is unclear whether 14.2(e) pertains to parents or children;
therefore Jordan”s amendment should be supported.
Serbia and Montenegro supported retaining 14.2(a),
2(b), and 2(c) as separate, and deleting Aon equal basis” in 14.2(c).
It agreed with New Zealand”s amendment regarding sterilization. Because
14.2(d) and 2(e) address parents with disabilities, it suggested creating
new paragraphs for both. It recommended moving 14.2(f) to an article
on awareness, and in adding "solely" to 14.2(e). It also agreed
that the best interest of child must be preserved.
Liechtenstein said that the article should be coherent
and add no new rights, but should only state how the rights of PWD may
be ensured. In 14.1, it proposed replacing the word “choice” with “freedom."
The rights enumerated in 14.2 are distinctive rights.
Thailand supported New Zealand's proposal to retain
14.2(a), 2(b), and 2(c), and its proposed wording, "retain fertility,"
in 14.2(c). It also supported Jordan”s amendment to 14.2(d).
Yemen spoke about its earlier statements, clarifying
its positions on marriage, which is recognized by all religions, and
on sexuality, which it opposes including in the Convention.
Israel suggested adding in 14.2(a), after "parenthood,"
the phrase "in accordance with national legislation” and amended
New Zealand”s language in 14.2(d) to read: “subject to best interest
of the child and in accord with national legislation.”
Brazil supported not combining 14.2(a), (b), and (c)
and did not support addition of religion in 14.2(a).
Saudi Arabia supported Yemen”s proposal with regard
to 14.2(a). It supported the idea that PWD should be able to experience
their sexuality, but supported adding “within the framework of marriage”
because this conforms to its national laws. It also supported Yemen”s
comments on 14.2(b). It supported Jordan”s addition in 14.2(e) regarding
children with disabilities.
The Chair asked for comments from interested NGOs.
Canadian Association for Community Living, on behalf
of Inclusion International and persons with intellectual disabilities
and their families, stated that people with intellectual disabilities
are not often considered as having a family, being married, or being
a part of creating their own family units. CACL emphasized that guaranteeing
the right to privacy, home, and family to people living in institutions
is essentially meaningless, as there is no privacy, home or home life,
or any anticipation of being or having family in institutions. Persons
with intellectual disabilities are very often denied their sexuality
through medications, restraint, violence, abuse, and sterilization.
This Convention should address the issues of persons with intellectual
disabilities, who are not usually considered to have even the same rights
that other people with disabilities enjoy.
People with Disabilities Australia Incorporated, along with
the Australian National of Community Legal Centers and the Australian
Federation of Disability Organizations supported the draft
of Article 14, but suggested that it be divided into two separate articles,
one on privacy and one on personal relationships. In 14.1, “correspondence”
should be replaced by “communications,” and “medical records” should
be replaced by the broader language “personal information, including
medical records.” To further broaden the scope of this Article, PWDA
recommended amending the title, using “personal relationships” instead
of “family.” Similarly, it proposed substituting “personal relationships,
including marriage and family relationships” for “marriage and family
relations.” PWDA emphasized that the Convention must contain an explicit
prohibition on the sterilization of children and adults with disability
for non-therapeutic purposes, including the prohibition of “voluntary”
conduct of parents and others seeking sterilization of their children.
PWDA stated that this prohibition could be located in either Article
12 or Article 14.
PWDA recommended moving the last sentence of 14.2(d) either to the end
of 14.2(e) or creating a stand-alone subparagraph, as it considered
the sentence applicable to both subparagraphs. It also recommended in
14.2(d) the insertion of “on an equal basis with others” after “the
rights of PWD” to achieve consistency with 14.2(a) and (c). It also
proposed the deletion of “against their will” in 14.2(e), as it is unclear
whether the phrase applies to the child, to the parent, or both.
PWDA strongly urged the Committee not to insert “solely” into 14.2(e),
as suggested by footnote 50, as disability should never be a justification
for the separation of children from their parents. PWDA considered this
to be a potential loophole that would permit authorities to separate
children from their parents.
PWDA urged the inclusion of a new subparagraph guaranteeing children
and parents access to legal aid in relation to these rights.
World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
considered it essential to have a legal basis for challenging legal
deprivations and emphasized the importance that all PWD have full legal
capacity on an equal basis with others. From this, WNUSP pointed out
the relationship between Article 14 and Article 9 and urged the Committee
not to dilute Article 9, or the rights laid out in Article 14 would
not be guaranteed.
While WNUSUP accepted the notion of the interdependence of human beings,
that all of us need aid and assistance, it cautioned that there is a
linkage between a psychiatric diagnosis and the stereotype of being
incapacitated and in need of special assistance and aid. WNSUP cautioned
against the introduction of provisions in the law in which capacity
is undermined. WNUSP urged against using either “solely” or “directly
or indirectly" in the text of 14.2(e).
Society of Catholic Social Scientists, along with
the Pro Life Family Coalition supported the intervention
of the Holy See with regards to 14.2(a), (b), and (c) that would substitute
the language of the ICCPR. SCSS pointed out that 14.2(a) and (c) incorporate
expansive language that goes beyond that of the ICCPR into “uncharted
and controversial directions” with by mentioning sexual relationship
out of the context of marriage.
It also proposed a new paragraph 3: “States Parties shall take effective
and appropriate measures to protect persons with disabilities of any
age by providing appropriate assistance to strengthen family support
systems while respecting the integrity of the family, the fundamental
group unit of society.”
Disabled Peoples’ International stated that existing
human rights treaties do not explicitly link the protection of the family
to PWD, that PWD do not currently enjoy the highest levels of protections
regarding the rights to live with their families, marry, have intimate
relationships, and start their own families, rights that are fully enjoyed
by others. In the Philippines, for example, disabled women are often
denied the right to marry and start families based on the assumption
that they cannot be good mothers and good wives. DPI directed the Committee
to 14.2(f) and expressed concern that the current text seems to employ
lower standards than earlier WG texts. DPI also suggested that there
be included in this Article language similar to that in Article 5.1,
requiring States Parties to undertake immediate and effective measures.
The Ad Hoc Committee Daily Summaries are published by the Landmine Survivors
Network, a US based international organization with amputee support networks
in 6 mine affected / developing countries. The proceedings of the UN Ad
Hoc Committee elaborating a Convention on the human rights of people with
disabilities are covered by them as a service to those wishing to better
understanding and follow the process toward a convention.