Back to: Fourth Session of the Ad Hoc Committee
Documents of the Fourth Session

AMENDMENTS BY THE CHAIR
TO THE DRAFT REPORT CONTAINED IN
DOCUMENT A/AC.265/2004/L.4

1. Section II D – Documentation

(d) add the words “and 2” after the words “Corr.1”;

2. Section III – Organization of work

Para 9, sixth line: add the words “and III” after the words “annex II”; the new annex III to the draft report will contain the text of the statement made by the Chair on the organization of work.

The following words at the end of para 9 will be deleted: “without prejudice to the decision to be taken by the General Assembly in that regard at its fifty-ninth session”.

3. Section IV – Recommendations

Para 10 should be replaced with the following text:

“The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that it continue its work in 2005 and that the dates be included in the relevant resolution to be adopted by the General Assembly in that regard at its fifty-ninth session. The Ad Hoc Committee also recommends that its fifth session could take place in New York in January 2005.”

4. There will be a new annex IV containing the report of the Coordinator.

Annex III

Ladies and gentlemen,

Following extensive consultations, this is the Chairman’s proposal on the organization of work for the fourth session.

The first week would be divided into two stages:

* The first one and a half days we have held a formal plenary meeting as we have had, to complete the first reading of the text.

* The next three and a half days we would continue plenary meeting, with the usual methods of work and intergovernmental organizations, NGOs as well as national human rights institutions participation. The meetings would be the formal opportunity to both states and observers, including NGOs as well as national human rights institutions to make comments and observations on the proposals that were made during the first reading to articles 1-15 and 24bis. The Chair would use this meeting to gauge the level of support those proposals receive, so he can identify those proposals that attract widespread agreement, and those on which opinion is divided.

Upon completion, the Chair would adjourn the plenary meeting, and invite a Coordinator to conduct informal consultations, so negotiations on Articles 1-15 and 24bis could begin. The informal consultations would operate under the following guidelines:

* The informal consultations would be held in Room 4 under the guidance of the Coordinator. It would be up to his discretion, on consultation with the meeting, how much time to devote to each article, and whether to cluster articles together.

* Intergovernmental organizations, NGOs as well as national human rights institutions are invited to be present.

* The Coordinator would aim to make as much progress as possible in that setting. For difficult issues, he may request the individual facilitators who have been appointed to hold smaller informal meetings on those specific issues.

* The smaller informal meetings would operate under the same guidelines, and would report back to the Coordinator.

* There would be no parallel meetings of the smaller informals and the main informal.

* Closed meetings may be required at some point.

* The Coordinator would report back to the Chair in a formal plenary meeting on Friday, 3 September. The proposal is made under the understanding that articles 15 bis - 25 would be treated in the same manner in the next session of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Annex IV

Report of the Coordinator to the fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee

I. Introduction

1 On 24 August the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee invited Ambassador Don MacKay (New Zealand) to coordinate informal discussions on the text of a draft convention. The Chair read a statement outlining the methodology that informal discussions would follow (see Annex III).

2 Informal meetings were held from August 30 to September 3. Draft Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7 were discussed.

3 Discussions were held with the aim of clearing up as many of the issues in the draft articles as possible. Where agreement was reached, it was on the understanding that it was without prejudice to delegations’ ability to reconsider the draft articles under discussion at a later stage.

4 The text of draft Articles 4 to 7 as they stand at the end of the meeting will be posted on the UN Enable website for the consideration of delegations intersessionally.

5 Discussion of the titles of the draft articles was deferred until a later date, pending agreement on whether they should remain in the final text or exist merely as working titles to facilitate negotiations.

6 In order to maintain the momentum of the informal discussions, the Coordinator recommended that informal discussions on draft Articles 1 to 15 continue at the next session of the Ad Hoc Committee.

II. Summary of discussions on draft Article 4

7 There was general agreement on the following points for draft Article 4:

• The committee should consider the placement of draft Articles 4, 5 and 7 in relation to each other at a later stage.

• Draft Article 4 should include the wording of Article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with an addition related to international cooperation borrowing from Article 2 of the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. The precise wording of the paragraph was referred to the facilitator’s group on this draft Article, led by Gustavo Ainchil (Argentina), for further work.

• The inclusion of the concept of progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, balanced by the need to implement immediately those obligations that are capable of immediate implementation.

• Non-discrimination is not subject to the doctrine of progressive realisation.

8 There was also a substantive discussion on a possible provision on remedies either in draft Article 4 or draft Article 9. While there was some support expressed for this, further discussion is required before the issue can be referred to the facilitator’s group.

Paragraph 1

9 There was general agreement that the elements in draft Articles 13(d), 19.2(e), 20(c) and 21(f) should be consolidated in subparagraph (f) and a new subparagraph (g) of this paragraph. The facilitator’s group was mandated to work on the precise wording of this proposal.

Paragraph 2

10 There was general agreement that: • The elements in draft Articles 5.2(d), 6(c), 18(c), 19.2(g) and 21(m) should be consolidated generically in this paragraph. • The ultimate placement of this paragraph should be discussed at a later stage, along with the other articles related to implementation and monitoring. • The question of consultation with families and others could not be resolved in the context of draft Article 4, but could be considered under other specific articles, or under the preamble.

III. Summary of discussions on draft Article 5

11 There was general agreement on the following points for draft Article 5:

Paragraph 1

• Subparagraph (a) should reflect the text prepared by the Working Group, but with the addition of “and to foster respect for their rights” at the end of the sentence. Various formulations of this phrase were proposed, and these were referred to the facilitator’s group on this draft Article, led by Ambassador Rowe (Sierra Leone), for refinement.

• Subparagraph (b) should reflect the text prepared by the Working Group, but with the additions of “in all areas of life” at the end of the sentence.

• Subparagraph (c) should be redrafted to read “Promote awareness of the capabilities and contributions of all persons with disabilities, and that as members of society they share the same rights and freedoms as all others, and in a manner consistent with the overall purpose of this Convention.” The meeting recognised that further fine-tuning of the paragraph was needed, and it was referred to the facilitator’s group for further discussion.

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph 2 contained much repetition of paragraph 1, and could either be streamlined or deleted. In either case, several delegations considered that the references to public awareness campaigns and the promotion of awareness in all children and the education system were valuable. They considered that they should be retained, either in a streamlined paragraph 2 or moved into paragraph 1. The coordinator referred this issue to the facilitator’s group.

• Should paragraph 2 be deleted, subparagraph (c) should be retained and moved into paragraph 1 to become paragraph 1(d).

• The coordinator also asked the facilitator’s group to elaborate general language on training, without prejudice to decisions on its inclusion and ultimate placement in the text.

IV. Summary of discussions on draft Article 6

12 There was general agreement on the following points for draft Article 6:

• There should be provision in the convention on this topic. • This should be a separate article and not merged with draft Article 25 on monitoring. • The article should be in the section of the convention concerned with implementation and monitoring (possibly in a chapter on these topics). Its ultimate placement was not resolved, and some delegations expressed the preference that it stay in the earlier part of the convention. • The text should be streamlined to read:

Where necessary, States Parties undertake to collect appropriate information to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to this Convention. The process of collecting and maintaining this information should:

(a) comply with legally established safeguards to ensure confidentiality and respect for the privacy of persons with disabilities, including legislation on data protection;
(b) comply with internationally accepted norms to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms;

V. Summary of discussions on draft Article 7

Paragraph 1

13 There was general agreement to the substance of this paragraph with one footnote and a referral of a drafting matter to the facilitator’s group on this draft Article, led by Stefan Barriga (Liechtenstein).

14 The text was generally agreed as follows: States Parties recognise that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law. States Parties shall prohibit any discrimination on the basis of disability, and guarantee to all persons with disabilities equal and effective protection against discrimination. States Parties shall also prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons with disabilities equal and effective protection against discrimination on any other ground*.

15 * The list of other grounds for discrimination outlined in the working group text has been deleted. A number of delegations would like to look again at this list in the context of the preamble; in particular paragraph (m) covers similar matters. It was agreed that the list should be consistent with existing human rights treaties.

16 The facilitator’s group is to consider whether it would be useful to combine the second and third sentence without altering the substance.

Paragraph 2 (a)

17 There was general agreement to use the following text, which borrows from the last part of Article 1 in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Two footnotes were also agreed:

a) For the purpose of the present Convention, the term “discrimination on the basis of disability” shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction* which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on a basis of equality with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field**.

18 * A number of delegations wished to include here the phrase “or denial of reasonable accommodation”.

19 ** A number of delegations would like to include other aspects within the definition such as those found within the ‘Inter-American Convention. Particular aspects raised were: record of disability, condition relating to previous disability, or perception of disability, whether past or present.

Paragraph 2 (b)

20 The text was generally agreed as follows:

b) Discrimination shall include all forms of discrimination, including direct and indirect discrimination.

21 Some drafting issues may need to be addressed later in relation to whether to amalgamate these subparagraphs (a) and (b).

Paragraph 3

22 It was generally agreed that the existing paragraph had a high risk of being misinterpreted. It was agreed to delete the paragraph and to add a footnote to the draft Article.

23 Agreed footnote text as follows: * Note a number of delegations were of the view that there should be a reflection of General Comment 18 of the Human Rights Committee as follows: “not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the convention.”

Paragraph 4

24 There was general agreement to use the following text as a basis for this paragraph, with two new footnotes, and retaining footnote 27 of the Working Group draft text. There was also acknowledgement of the need for further drafting consideration and discussion on the placement of the definition, either here or within the definitions section of the draft convention.

25 The text was generally agreed as follows:

*States Parties undertake to take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided; “reasonable accommodation” to be defined as necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate burden**, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on a basis of equality with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms²⁷.

26 *A preceding phrase that was proposed, and a corresponding one in the Working Group draft, was deleted, which some delegations wish to consider further.

27 **A number of delegations have problems with the phrase ‘disproportionate burden’.

Footnotes:

27 Refer to footnote 27 of the Working Group text, contained in Annex I of the report of the Working Group to the Ad Hoc Committee (A/AC.265/2004/WG.1).