Daily Summary related to Draft Article 16
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
Prepared by Landmine Survivors Network

Volume 3, #5
January 9, 2004

Afternoon session

Commenced: 3:10pm
Recessed: 1pm

RIGHTS OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITES

Ireland found this article “disappointing” providing a “significantly lesser degree for commitment” than its parallel article in the Child Rights Convention. While its first two paragraphs correspond to Article 23 of the CRC, paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the CRC, providing assistance free of charge, is omitted in the Chair’s text. This underlines the dangers of restating rights already covered in international human rights law. What the WG should examine at this point is how best to implement the rights contained in existing conventions and how better to put in practice the commitments entered into in the CRC. There are no measures to ensure that the commitments of Article 29.1 (a) of the CRC, on education being directed to the development of the child’s personality talents, mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential, be implemented. This is the same for the issues of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation (Article 34 of the CRC) and the cruel treatment of children (Article 37). Paragraph 3 of the Chair’s article acknowledges the right of parents and families of children with disabilities to appropriate information, but does not grant children the same right. These issues should be addressed from a “much more proactive view point” requiring further consultations. The Chair’s text is not an advancement on our existing commitments, in fact “far from it.” Germany fully endorsed Ireland’s statements.

World Federation of the Deaf-Blind (WFDB) endorsed Ireland’s and Germany’s positions. The article’s language needs to be made disabled-child specific. It currently reflects a society of hearing and seeing people who see this is as the ideal. The notion of a “full and decent life” does not mirror the possibilities and experiences of a different world that the deaf-blind child explores and communicates in. The child does not have the possibility to develop its own qualities, through tactile exploration for example. Information to parents is crucial but must be done correctly. Many parents have unrealistic dreams for their children, especially in the case of deaf-blind children. There is a need to have counseling around parents and children as early intervention.

Slovenia stressed that education is a priority to be highlighted in paragraph 2.

South Africa endorsed comments made by the EU and German representatives and proposed the reference to “special care” in Article 18.2 be changed to “provision of appropriate services”

LSN noted that the CRC represents a significant development in establishing the principle of autonomy in relation to children with disabilities. LSN outlines integral aspects of this autonomy: the right to express their views on all matters of concern to them and to have their views taken seriously in accordance with their age and maturity; the right to exercise rights on their own behalf consistent with their evolving capacities; building on the Chair’s Draft, article 18(1), on page 132 of the Compilation, which addresses the promotion of “self-reliance”, the right to support and encouragement to develop their capacities so that they can participate in the exercise of their rights and take increasing levels of responsibility for their own lives. In addition, LSN endorsed Article 18(3) of the Chair’s draft which provides for appropriate support to parents of children with disabilities. The provision should acknowledge that children with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. In addition, in countries lacking a formal government or experiencing armed conflict, children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable and this must be recognized.

DPI noted that the Chair’s proposed language seemed to have been taken from Article 22 (4) (5) and (6) of the Bangkok draft. DPI suggested the WG reexamine the BKK draft with a view to reinsert the missing paragraphs. There is a need to address the needs of parents in this context and the protection of children from being separated from their families, as dealt with in Article 9 of the CRC.

WBU suggested that the article’s second or third paragraph should include the concept of “habilitation,” which would entail giving a child with disability the possibility to handle their situation early in life, as opposed to rehabilitation, which implies regaining skills. The Coordinator enquired whether this is an accepted concept in international law and received an affirmative response.

WFD concurred with statements made by Ireland, Germany, LSN and WBU. And suggested referring to other articles in the CRC such as articles 5,13,15,17 and 21, specifying that these rights also apply to children with disabilities.

IAID noted that the CRC is the only convention on human rights to mention disability.

Thailand supported DPI’s suggestion that the WG take Article 22 (7) and (8) of the BKK draft seriously because of the financial burden upon the families of PWD.

II stated that the language of Article 18 is too weak. The first 3 years of the child are crucial. Integrated early intervention may actually save money, because a child with disabilities who has received this care will not need as much assistance later in life. Serbia Montenegro concurred with statements made by Slovenia, Germany and Ireland. WBU pointed to Article 22 (3) of the Bangkok draft, recognizing citizenship and nationality rights for children with disabilities.

Germany agreed with Thailand on education and suggested alternative text to BKK Article 22 (8) on “access and participation to regular and special education services.” Language recognising instead the “right to have access and participation to education services on an equal footing with others” would leave the debate about special or irregular education services to be addressed in the separate article on education.

India noted that in many developing countries the girl child with disabilities is at highest risk of neglect and exploitation, and this convention should protect her, even within the family system.

Thailand reiterated that any particular model of education services cannot take care of the whole problem, whether it be special or not; it preferred to avoid referring to “regular” education. This convention should not endorse any one model over another. Nationality is a sensitive issue especially in countries with refugee populations. Children with disabilities should be accorded the same rights as children without disabilities in this respect. Ireland recalled that Article 7 of the CRC already provides that all children have the right to acquire nationality. The issue of which nationality is a separate matter.

Disability Australia Limited (DAL) suggested that equal access to all forms of education be included.

Volume 3, #8
January 14, 2004

Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3:14
Adjourned: 6:08

CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

The Coordinator noted that the main source for this article is the CRC, as mentioned in the footnote. The footnote stipulates that article 23 of the CRC “is a specific elaboration of disability issues in a Convention on children that does not otherwise deal with disabilities, Article 13 of this text, however, is a specific elaboration of children’s issues in a convention where the rest of the text does deal with disabilities.”

II noted the use of the term “special care”. In some countries the term “inclusive” is used instead of “special”, as in “inclusive care” or “inclusive education.” II, recognizing that the word “inclusive” is contested, proposed deletion of the word special. Moreover the word “care” is used in the article later on without a qualifier.

South Africa proposed that the provision of appropriate devices be dealt with in this article. Regarding education, the delegate proposed that the need to reflect the need for quality of education.

Ireland cautioned the WG against providing for less favorable rights than in the CRC.

Regarding the term “appropriate services,” Colombia proposed substituting appropriate with “integral.” This term implies coordinating various health sectors and encompassing various professionals working to treat PWD.

Venezuela supported Colombia’s proposal to add the term integral, given that it is a technical term. It relates to other aspects, not simply to education and personal assistance. In addition, the words rehabilitation and habilitation should be included in full, not simply to include through the use of brackets, as in [re]habilitation.

Ireland suggested that “comprehensive” was a more appropriate term for “integral”, which is the most obvious direct translation of the Spanish term suggested by Venezuela.

Lebanon suggested adding a paragraph to the effect that States Parties undertake all measures for early detection of disability in order to provide services at the earliest stage possible. WNUSP advised that caution should be used with regard to the term “early intervention.” There are some contexts when early intervention will harm the child, particularly children with psychosocial disabilities. These children are often subjected to drugging in the context of early intervention.

Korea expressed concerns about the use of the term “spiritual development”.

Back to Draft Article