Skip navigation links Sitemap | About us | FAQs

UN Programme on Disability   Working for full participation and equality


Article 5 - Equality and non-discrimination
Background Documents | Article 5 Background

Seventh Session | Fifth Session | Fourth Session | Third Session
Working Group
| References

Fifth Session



Consolidation of proposals submitted by the Facilitator

Article 7-

Equality and Non Discrimination

Facilitator proposal as of 31 January 2005

After discussions with many delegations and NGO representatives the Facilitator on Article 7 would like to make the following proposal to move forward on Article 7 para. 5:

[Positive] Measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality of persons with disabilities shall not be considered discrimination on the basis of disability. , but shall in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate standards; those measures shall be discontinued when the objectives of equalitiy of opportunity and treatment have been achieved.


Delegations have expressed differing views on the second part of the current draft and have expressed concerns mainly with respect to two issues:

1.) Temporary measures: The previous draft included a sentence taken from Art. 4 (1) CEDAW (cf. below), which stipulates that temporary measures to accelerate de facto equality must be discontinued when the objectives have been achieved. The measures looked at in the context of disability are, however, better comparable to those outlined in Art 4 (2) CEDAW, relating to maternity. It follows that it is not necessary to specify in this Convention when measures should be discontinued. In addition, the opening phrase clearly states that only “measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality of persons with disabilities” are covererd by this paragraph, which would thus not apply to “outdated” measures, since they can no longer accelerate equality.

2.) Unequal or separate standards: Discussions have revealed great differences in the interpretation of “unequal or separate standards”, which was interpreted by some as restricting too much States’ ability to adopt certain desirable measures, in particular for groups of persons with disabilities with very specific needs. Other delegations were concerned that the deletion of this phrase would allow States to adopt measures whose consequences could amount to segregation (e.g. in schools). Once again, a comparison with Art. 4 (2) CEDAW seems appropriate, which does not mention “unequal or separate standards”. The concern that States might adopt measures which lead to segregation should be covered on the one hand by the opening phrase “measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality of persons with disabilities”, as well as by the many substantial standards established throughout the convention, relating to education, health, work, social inclusion. These two elements should provide enough safeguards against counterproductive measures, be they even well-intended.





Home | Sitemap | About us | FAQs | Contact us

© United Nations, 2006
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Division for Social Policy and Development