Skip navigation links Sitemap | About us | FAQs

UN Programme on Disability   Working for full participation and equality

Back to: Daily Summaries
Ad Hoc Committee Main


Daily summary of discussions related to Article 10


UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee - Daily Summary
A service made possible by Landmine Survivors Network * [Disclaimer]

Volume 5, #4
August 26, 2004



Venezuela agreed in principle with Article 10 as drafted, with minor changes. In 10(2)(b), the term “technical information” should be added. In 10(2)(c) “in Braille and in sign language” should also be added.

Mexico withdrew its proposal to delete language in 10(2). Mexico supports the inclusion of Colombia’s proposal in 1(e). It withdraws its proposals for 2(d) and 4.

Canada supported inclusion of Article 10. Canada does not support the Korean proposal for 10(2)(a). It supports the Chinese and New Zealand proposals for 10(2)(b), and supports replacing “legal” with “counsel” which is common terminology in human rights law. Canada supports including a subparagraph on compensation and encourages delegations to consider the Canadian proposal in this regard. Canada seeks clarification of the Mexican proposal for a new paragraph 10(4).

Mexico, in response to the Chair’s request, reiterated its proposal for 10(4)bis and indicated that it would consult with Canada to clarify its meaning.

Japan noted that it proposed deleting 10(2)(c)(ii) at AHC3 and clarified that it did so on the basis that it does not differentiate between deprivation of liberty based on criminal conduct, in which case there is no need for additional review, or for other reasons.

Costa Rica reiterated the importance of the Article to ensure that PWD are guaranteed their right to freedom and not deprived of their due process rights. Costa Rica supports the proposal of Mexico in 10(2) and 10(2)(d) and new paragraph (4) ,and the proposal of China and New Zealand in 10(2)(b). It expresses concern for the Korean proposal for 2(a) as it may be too broad in scope. There is no distinction as to who will be the subject of periodic review in 2(c)(ii).

Chile reaffirmed the WG text for 10(1)(b) but amended to include language ensuring due process. It supports the Ugandan proposal in 1(c)bis, but it should be moved to (2). It supports the inclusion of a paragraph covering the confinement of PWD in line with the EU proposal for 2(d).

China supports the WG article in general terms. In 10(1)(b) it supports the Canadian proposal to add the term “solely.” In 2(b), China reiterates its proposal from AHC3 to add “applicable law,” and supports the New Zealand proposal for 2(b). It supports the statements of several delegations to delete 2(ii), and supports the EU proposal for an additional sub-paragraph 2(d).

New Zealand noted additional text around the issue of civil commitment, but this can be addressed elsewhere in Articles 11 and 12. It supports the Canadian amendment to add “solely” in 10(1)(b). In 10(2)(d), the following text should be added: “unless the deprivation of liberty is a result of criminal conviction in which case review will be subject to States Parties legislation” to ensure that disabled prisoners do not enjoy additional rights from others. The right to compensation should be included, so long as it is consistent with 9(5) ICCPR. New Zealand maintains its proposal in relation to 2(b).

The Netherlands (EU) withdrew the earlier EU proposal for a new Article 3 concerning forced institutionalization, and introduced a new proposal including a detailed reworking of 10(2)(b), available at:

South Africa supported the inclusion of Article 10, and is generally satisfied with the WG draft. In 10(1)(a), the definition of discrimination in Article 3 should be included and made relevant under Article 10. It rejects the proposal of some delegations to include the term “solely” in 10(1)(b), as it implies that other types of discrimination may be tolerated. It supports the proposal of Uganda in 1(c), but the definition of rehabilitation must in that case be included in Article 3. South Africa does not support the use of “applicable law” in 10(2)(b) or elsewhere. It supports the Colombia proposal for 10(2)(e). It cannot support the EU language on forced institutionalization without inclusion of qualifying language which it will provide to the Secretariat. South Africa supports in its entirety the proposal of Mexico for a new paragraph 10(4).

Republic of Korea clarified its proposal regarding 10(2)(a). The purpose is to make clear that people with disabilities may or may not need assistance. The first part of the proposal should be maintained, at a minimum.

Thailand welcomed the proposal of the EU on forced institutionalization as new 10(1)(b), but with removal of the term “exclusively.” The Japanese proposal to delete 10(2)(c)(ii) is unnecessary as it is connected to access to assistance.

Serbia and Montenegro supported the EU proposal for 10(1)(b). It also supports the deletion of (d) and its insertion as a separate paragraph (3), in line with proposals by Canada and Lebanon, though with some possible changes, and the New Zealand proposal for 10(2)(b). It supports the inclusion of language relating to conditions of confinement of PWD.

Ethiopia stressed the importance of ensuring that criminal administrative processes must be assessed from a disability perspective. Disability cannot be an obstacle for a speedy trial in any criminal process.

Namibia supported the insertion of 10(1)(c) as proposed by Uganda, but placed under 10(2). It supports Korea in relation to 10(2)(a). It supports the Mexican proposals for 10(2)(d) and 10(4), but ending with the term “freedoms.”

The Disability Caucus supported the separation of Article 10 into two parts. The prohibition against arbitrary or discriminatory detention is about deprivation of liberty based on disability and is a single issue requiring its own treatment. The Caucus proposal is available at: It supports the requirements of compensation as it is reflected in the ICCPR. The Caucus proposes a new Article 10bis which addresses in detail the situation of PWD who are under arrest and detention and other access to justice issues. The Caucus is strongly opposed to the use of the term “solely” in 1(b).

DPI supported the Caucus proposals and stressed two points from the consumer perspective. DPI supports the proposal of New Zealand at AHC3 regarding the need to ensure that PWD have the right to be informed of their rights and reasons for any deprivation of liberty. Second, it is necessary that humane treatment must be accorded to PWD who are under arrest and detention. The convention text must explicitly address these issues.

The Chair concluded discussions on Article 10 and introduced Ambassador MacKay of New Zealand to review the process to be followed during the remainder of the 4th session.

Ambassador MacKay expressed his appreciation for being invited to assume a coordinating role. He reviewed the process by which the WG had operated and noted his understanding that the Committee wanted to maintain this type of operating procedure. He noted that there are some substantive issues that may be problematic with some of the articles, but that others would be capable of easier resolution. He also noted the valuable drafting proposals that could be resolved quickly in the main informals. There would be informal plenary sessions, without parallel sessions. He also noted that facilitators are assigned to the articles under consideration in the second reading. All meetings would be open-ended, and no meeting would be closed. He noted the WG experience where it was helpful to have recourse to smaller groups guided by facilitators, and that not all delegations would feel the need to attend, though those with particular issues on an article should, where possible, attend the smaller informals. All delegations are free to raise issues with the draft at any point, though they are encouraged to make use of bilateral consultations as well as smaller meetings with facilitators where they have an issue with a particular article. He reminded the Committee that “the perfect is the enemy of the good” and that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

The Chair thanked Ambassador MacKay and opened the floor for discussion of Article 11.

Home | Sitemap | About us | News | FAQs | Contact us

© United Nations, 2003-04
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Division for Social Policy and Development