Skip navigation links Sitemap | About us | FAQs

UN Programme on Disability   Working for full participation and equality

Back to: Fifth Session of the Ad Hoc Committee
Summaries of the Fifth Session

Daily summary of discussion at the fifth session
25 January 2005


Language versions in Word: Français | Español
Original MS Word version

UN Convention on the Human Rights of People with Disabilities
Ad Hoc Committee - Daily Summaries

A service brought to you by RI (Rehabilitation International)

Volume 6, #2
January 25, 2005


ARTICLE 8: RIGHT TO LIFE (continued)

Egypt supported the inclusion of special factors which impact right to life because this Convention is about the rights of PWD and must have clear and frank language about the obstacles to these rights such as natural disasters, armed conflict, foreign occupation, etc. These conditions restrict the rights of PWD; therefore this Convention must reaffirm this guarantee of the right to life. This is not political in nature; the international community rejects natural and manmade disasters. This Convention must reject particular opinions, doctrines, or ideologies. The fundamental principle must be special circumstances and special provisions.

Colombia supported Costa Rica's wording proposal because it reaffirms other treaties by stating that PWD have a right to life. Nothing should be added to Article 8; perhaps the proposed addition belongs in Article 10, on the security of persons.

Republic of Korea spoke in favor of Article 8 because without the right to life, other rights cannot be enjoyed. It agreed with other delegations that the current, concise WG text should be kept. Listing various situations would weaken this article. It supported Costa Rica's proposals to delete "PWD" in the middle of the sentence and to replace "them" at the end of the sentence with "PWD," in order to reinforce that this Convention reaffirms the right to life for all people.

Holy See agreed with El Salvador that this article should more explicitly express the right to life at all stages of life including at conception.

Trinidad and Tobago stated that although it understands why other delegations want to add important issues to this Article 8, the Article should only deal with the inherent right to life. It supported Costa Rica's approach which would cover all situations. If the Convention contained a list, would it be an indicative list or an exhaustive list? Would this Committee become embroiled in a long debate about every situation which impacts the right to life? Simplicity is the most appropriate approach.

Nigeria affirmed its belief that Article 8 is vital to this Convention, and supported Costa Rica's proposed language and New Zealand's proposed addition. However, particular issues, such as war, conflict and natural disaster need to be added to this article because vulnerable groups must be assured their security during these times.

The Coordinator noted the consensus for keeping Article 8 in the Convention. Two amendments to the WG text received widespread support: Costa Rica's proposal to reaffirm the inherent right to life of "all persons" (instead of "PWD" as in the WG text) and to change "them" to "PWD"; and New Zealand's proposal to add "on an equal basis with others." The full article with additions will read: "States Parties reaffirm the inherent right to life of all persons and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others." There was wide support to broaden this article to include special measures for PWD at particular risk such as those facing natural disasters, war, foreign occupation and other events. At the same time, there was strong support for keeping the present brief text. There is no general agreement to broadening this article. However, there was no opposition to including these issues in other areas of the Convention or in a separate article. In CRC, there is a separate provision, in Article 38, dealing with this issue. The term often used in other Conventions is "public emergency"; whether this term goes far enough for this group is unclear. Resolving this article will require flexibility and compromise. He proposed the following language: "States Parties reaffirm that every human being has an inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others." He explained that "human being" is the term used in the ICCPR. He proposed Article 8(bis): "States Parties recognize that in situations of risk to the general population persons with disabilities are especially vulnerable, and shall take all feasible measures for their protection." The placement of 8(bis) is still not settled. This language goes further than the right to life. The obligation during situations of war, foreign occupation, pubic emergency and humanitarian emergency goes further than ensuring PWD have the right to life. The risks to PWD are not only to their lives, but to other aspects of their well-being. This may not be any delegation's ideal solution, but it could be a compromise formulation. He asked for comments on these proposals.

Yemen expressed appreciation for the Coordinator's proposed 8(bis) but it believes the Convention should reflect specific treatment in specific cases. Listing these examples would give PWD their due rights. The issue is not political; it is about States' commitment to protection of PWD.

The Coordinator restated Yemen's preference for enumerating "situations of risk" including humanitarian disasters, natural disasters, wars, and foreign occupation. Some delegations had reservations about making a list. Other Conventions use the term "public emergency," but that was too narrow to encompass foreign occupation and other situations. [Remainder of statement not recorded on tape].

Kenya expressed its support for Article 8 and 8(bis) and proposed changing the word "feasible" to "appropriate" or "necessary." It asked for an explanation of the word "feasible."

The Coordinator responded that an adjective was necessary, and that it might not be possible in a disaster for a State to take all measures to protect PWD. He agreed that appropriate was another option but believed that it was weaker than feasible. "Feasible" means any action that one can take; "necessary" may be too strong because a State may not be able to take all necessary actions. "Feasible" is used in CRC, Article 38, paragraph 4 in the context of armed conflict. Of course, this Committee may adopt any word it chooses.

Palestine restated its support for listing specific situations in Article 8. It does not support the Coordinator's proposed general language.

Luxembourg (EU) asked for more time to determine whether it supports 8(bis).

The Coordinator noted a general consensus for his proposal for Article 8. Some issues regarding 8(bis) still need to be worked out for which interested delegations should speak with the facilitator for this Article, Ecuador. The choices are to use the general term "situations of risk"; or to refer to "public emergency," which may not include all situations; or to spell out the situations inclusively and in detail.



The Coordinator stated that Article 9, "Equal Recognition of a Person Before the Law," is a more complex Article. The discussion will need to be structured to avoid misunderstandings. There are several alternative proposals. In earlier discussions there was quite a bit of support for Canada's proposal. However, he asked the group to use the WG text as a basis of negotiation when considering alternative approaches. In Article 7, there is language about equality before the law and equal protection under the law so there is a question about whether Article 9 should repeat that language. There is also a question about whether the Article should focus on supported decision-making and not permit substitute decision-making. Disability NGOs have strong views on this which the Committee should consider. Another issue is whether to deal with access to justice here or under a separate article. The Coordinator also put forward several other questions that need consideration, including the following: How should this Convention deal with legal capacity and property rights? Do these need further elaboration? Should this article include equal obligations and responsibilities? He suggested using this time for discussing substantive issues, not for drafting changes. He asked the group to be aware of time constraints and to keep the process moving.

Then the Coordinator asked for comments regarding 9(a). During the discussion of Article 7, there was general agreement on language reading. "States Parties recognize that all persons are equal before and under the law and entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law." Essentially this is the same idea as in 9(a), although 9(a) is more specific because it refers to PWD. Is 9(a) necessary, in light of the language in Article 7?

Libya opposed the first word of 9(a), "recognize," because it implies that States are not recognizing PWD and now they will. PWD should not be separated from other people before the law. PWD have legal obligations and rights with the exception of those with "damaged brains," who should be exempted from certain punishments. Otherwise, PWD should be treated the same in all obligations and rights. He supported deleting the word "recognition."

Japan expressed frustration about the decision to start with the WG text because the Canadian proposal had support from many delegations including the EU. Japan does not want to rehash previous discussions. It also expressed the concern which China brought up in a previous session regarding the fundamental difference between the systems of Continental Law and Common Law. The Convention should affirm the general equality of PWD, but it should also accommodate exceptional situations where PWD are adjudicated to be incompetent and unable to exercise their legal rights.

The Coordinator agreed that there was widespread support for the Canadian proposal. He said he was open to reviewing that text instead of the WG text. He asked for other opinions.

The EU reaffirmed its position that there is a need for recognition of equal rights and the guarantee of equality. This Article deals with the capacity of persons and therefore the legal framework is important. It supported 9(a) & (b), which provide that framework. It supported negotiating from Canada's proposed text.

Australia supported Japan's proposal to work from the Canadian proposal. This support was echoed by Serbia and Montenegro.

Costa Rica compared the WG text with the Canadian proposal. Paragraphs 9(1) & 9(2) are about the same in both versions, while 9(3) is totally different. If this group begins its discussions with the Canadian proposal, the differences between it and the WG draft should be made clear. These are not just drafting differences; they are legal and philosophical differences. Costa Rica prefers to work from the WG draft, but is willing to consider either.

The Coordinator stated that the Committee needed to choose one draft in order to facilitate the discussion, and that there seemed to be consensus for working from the Canadian proposal.

China stated that there had been much discussion during AHC4 during which many proposals were offered. Although the Canadian proposal includes many good ideas, it is not appropriate to use only one proposed text out of all of the contributions of the WG. The African Group proposals were also very good. China expressed support for 9(a).

The Coordinator stated that all texts are on the table; the group just needs to choose one text as a starting point. He stated that he does not want a long procedural discussion.

Thailand supported the WG text as the basis for discussion. Other texts should be brought into the WG text; otherwise, there may be confusion.

Yemen stated that in 9(a), the word "recognition," in itself, may not produce the desired results for States or PWD. It proposed using terms which are legally significant, such as "commit" or "obligation," that equate to equality for PWD. As Libya stated, "recognition" does not add anything to this Convention; recognition is only a process which may not guarantee PWD rights.

Brazil preferred using the WG text because 9(3) of the Canadian proposal allows for certain authorities to find an adult not to have legal capacity.

Kenya (Africa Group) supported using the WG framework, although language from the Canadian proposal may be added to it.

Iran, Uruguay, Jordan and the EU supported using the WG text as a basis for negotiation.

The Coordinator decided that the WG text would be the basis for discussions because the General Assembly resolution requires this and there is no reason to deviate from procedure. Other text may be added as needed.

Costa Rica suggested that 9(a) is redundant given its similarity to 7(1) and should be deleted, unless there is strong disagreement.

Colombia agreed with Costa Rica.

Kenya (Africa Group) stated that 9(a) is about self-determination and therefore recognition is very pertinent. Recognizing PWD as individuals having equal rights before the law is appropriate. It supports retaining 9(a) with the following language: "Recognize PWD as individuals with equal rights before the law."

Libya explained its earlier comments. When legislators formulate a law, they consider persons on an equal basis; they do not distinguish between persons and PWD. Therefore, the word "recognition" is saying that we don't recognize PWD before the law, but when this Convention is signed, we will. "Obligation" is the needed term; PWD are already equal before the law. Recognition has already been obtained.

The Coordinator noted that other international instruments have used the term "recognition." The UDHR, Article 6, reads: "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." A verb is necessary. The Coordinator asked Libya whether it could offer an alternative word.

Libya responded that it had no alternative, but supported Yemen's suggestion to use a more obligatory term.

Uruguay stated its belief that because Article 7 already recognizes equality before the law, this group should look at Mexico's proposed revision which reads: "Recognise persons with disabilities as subjects of rights and obligations before the law, in equal conditions to those of persons without disabilities."

The EU reminded the group that the term "recognition" is found in Article 16 of ICCPR. Article 9 should encompass both the recognition of equal rights under the law and the guarantee of equality to enjoy those rights.

The Coordinator asked what the EU thought about the reformulation of the African Group "equal rights before the law," rather than "equal to all other persons." The EU responded that its proposal would read: "Recognize PWD as individuals with equal rights before the law and guarantee equality before the law without discrimination against PWD."

The Coordinator asked the EU why the second half of its proposal repeats 7(1). The EU answered that this Article must lay out a clear framework of principles for dealing with the capabilities of individuals and to reaffirm equality before the law. The Coordinator said that, presumably, when one article of the Convention deals with an issue, it should not be repeated in another parts. That would create a weaker and unwieldy Convention. The EU said that its delegation would discuss the Coordinator's suggestion to streamline the text in light of the similar language in Article 7.

Jordan proposed alternative language for beginning 9(a), given its importance to this Article. Using "believing that" or "understanding that" or "considering that" instead of "recognizing" will make clear that a fundamental right exists, without it having to be recognized.

Mexico pointed out that historically, rights were "granted," but now rights are "recognized." This change reflects the current thinking on human rights: States do not create or grant rights, they recognize rights. Mexico supports the WG text's use of the word "recognize" because this parallels other Conventions and reflects the current thinking. Mexico cautioned that the Committee is repeating much of the discussion it had during its consideration of Article 7. Article 9 involves the juridical capabilities and capacities of PWD and the actions needed to achieve de facto equality, not just juridical equality. Its proposal aims to deal with conditions, not juridical principles which are already established. Everyone enjoys the same rights under the law; Article 9 should deal with the measures needed to ensure juridical capabilities can actually be exercised by individuals with disabilities.

The Coordinator agreed with Mexico that the word "recognize" is used in other human rights instruments and that the word "believing" is used in United Nation resolutions and preambles. Legally, "recognize" is seen as a stronger term; it is a standard term and is used in Article 6 of the UDHR and in Article 16 of the ICCPR. The Coordinator asked the delegations to reflect further on the term "recognize." He also asked them to consider the various proposals regarding Article 9 made by the African Group, Mexico, and others, as there is not yet a consensus. It may be that the Committee prefers the WG formulation.

Cuba suggested the word "reaffirm" to replace the term "recognize" and thereby resolve the concerns of groups objecting to that term.

Venezuela urged that Article 9 should deal only with individuals' juridical capacity. To avoid duplication, it proposed removing the language about non-discrimination from Article 9, and keeping it in Article 7. Regarding 9(a), to achieve equality for PWD under the law this section must include legal obligations. It echoed Uruguay's support for the Mexican proposal.

Yemen stated that although 9(a) has similar language as Article 7, they have different purposes and therefore it believes they should both be kept in the Convention. It supports the EU's proposed language reading, "Recognise persons with disabilities as individuals with equal rights before the law and guarantee equality before the law, without discrimination against persons with disabilities." Guaranteeing rights is not sufficient; this Convention should include obligations to comply. Therefore Yemen proposed a word change in the EU version so that this obligation will be conveyed in the Arabic translation.

Trinidad and Tobago stated that because the word "recognize" is used in other documents, it should be used in this Convention. It is concerned about interpretations of other proposed words. In terms of obligatory language, the chapeau is obligatory so everything which follows is also obligatory. It suggested adding some cross-referencing so that the Convention is not unduly duplicative. For example, the EU language in 9(a) repeats ideas in Article 7. It proposed the following language: "Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 7, States Parties shall recognize PWD as individuals with equal rights before the law." This would both safeguard previous articles and avoid repetition.

Chile stated that the word "recognize" is sufficiently imperative for this Convention. It agreed with others that this Article focuses on the legal capacity of PWDs and on recognition of their ability to enjoy these rights. Equality under the law is already in Article 7; this Article needs to discuss the supports that PWDs may require in order to use these rights. The Article should also deal with de facto restrictions on those rights.

New Zealand supported Canada's proposal to delete 9(a) because this idea is covered in Article 7.

Libya expressed its preference for the word "reaffirm," which is also used in other Conventions, because it is more obligatory than "recognize." However it will accept "recognize" if that is the consensus.

The Coordinator pointed out that there was no consensus regarding alternative text so he suggested using the language in the WG text. Several groups have supported deleting 9(a) because it is redundant, but there has been quite a bit of support for retaining it. The term "recognize" causes concerns for some delegations, but others are willing to be flexible. He would like to leave this issue for later; however, he sees support for 9(a) in the WG text. One of the issues is whether to include "obligations," as proposed by Mexico, or whether "rights" is enough. The other issue is whether the text should be "equal rights under the law" or "equal to all other persons," though this is not a substantive issue, but merely a drafting issue.

Iran agreed to accept "equal rights under the law" but pointed out that the practice in this Convention has been to compare PWD to other persons. Therefore it proposed the language "equal rights under the law like other persons." Either formulation is fine. Regarding obligations, it asked if a person who committed a crime and is "retarded" or has psychological problems should be treated the same and have the same obligations. There are exceptional cases. There should be more clarification and discussion.

Republic of Korea supported the retention of "equal rights before the law" because it is a core idea of Article 9. It stated that Article 7, which addresses non-discrimination, does not have equality before the law at its core. It proposed deleting the phrase from Article 7 instead of from Article 9, if duplication is a concern.

Libya supported the African Group's proposal.

The Coordinator asked delegates to respond to Iran's comment about whether obligations are included in the concept of equality before the law. The other question is whether to use language calling for recognition of PWD as "individuals with rights before the law," as in the original WG text, or as "individuals with equal rights before the law," as in the revisions proposed by the African Group and the European Union. He asked if there was a substantive difference between the two texts.

Kenya (African Group) responded that there is a substantive difference. From a measurement standpoint, "equal rights before the law" is a stronger statement.

Mexico explained why it proposed adding "obligations" to 9(a). In Mexico some civil rights, such as voting, are also obligations. Also the term "obligation" helps to give this Convention a non-paternalistic tone. Mexico would be willing to live without the term "obligations" if that is the consensus. It proposed this language in order to emphasize equal conditions. If the group rejects this formulation of 9(a), Mexico would like to draft an introduction to Article 9.

The Coordinator asked whether any delegation had problems with referring to "obligations" in 9(a).

Canada responded that this is a human rights Convention and cannot cover every aspect of a legal framework. The Convention is intended to deal with human rights and it is not appropriate to refer to obligations in this Article.

Libya supported the term "obligations" because without that language, PWD who are convicted of crimes might use the Convention to try to avoid punishment.

The Coordinator stated that there is no consensus about the word "obligations." He asked for comments regarding the change proposed by the African group -- "individuals with equal rights before the law," as opposed to "individuals with rights before the law equal to all other persons."

Australia supported the WG text because "equal rights" with no comparison point is problematic. It raises the question, equal to what or to whom? "Equal to all other persons" gives a point of comparison or measurement.

The Coordinator asked Kenya if, after hearing Australia, it could live with the WG text.

Kenya asked for more time to confer with the African Group. The Coordinator suggested talking to Australia to see whether substantive differences could be resolved. For now, the WG text will stay as it is; this group may revisit this later if necessary.

Philippines supported Mexico and Libya in including obligations because genuine equality includes both rights and responsibilities. If this group is uncomfortable with the word "obligations," it suggested using "responsibilities" instead.

Thailand supported the WG text as written. If the Committee decides to use the African Group's proposal, it should add language such as "without distinction or discrimination based on disabilities." [Remainder of intervention not recorded]

The Coordinator mentioned that the African Group may want to consider whether the wording in its proposal could be interpreted as recognizing equal rights among PWD before the law rather than in comparison to people without disabilities. He suggested that Canada, the Philippines and others discuss whether obligations or responsibilities should be included in 9(a). He stated that for now, the WG text will be used for future negotiations. He then began discussion of 9(b): "Accept that persons with disabilities have full legal capacity on an equal basis as others, including in financial matters." Footnote 32 states: "The intent of this subparagraph is to acknowledge that children are not generally accepted as having full legal capacity and that neither would, therefore, children with disabilities. In terms of legal capacity, persons with disabilities should be treated without discrimination on the basis of disability."

Iran asked how "retarded people” could be expected to manage financial matters and how the Convention should treat them. Should they given full legal capacity? An exception should be added to the end in order to address this vital question.

The Coordinator stated that the WG approach was to look at Article 9 as a whole. 9(a) states that PWD have rights before the law; 9(b) states that PWD have full legal capacity on an equal basis with others; 9(c) and 9(d) both acknowledge that there are circumstances in which PWD will require assistance to exercise their legal capacity, and require the provision of that assistance; and 9(e) and 9(f) ensure that PWD are not denied the right to own or inherit property or control, and that they are not deprived of their property. Individual paragraphs cannot stand alone; the Article must be taken as a whole. This Article raises complex issues.

Yemen shared its concerns that legal capacity has broad meaning and covers more than financial matters; it covers all aspects including social, political and economic. It suggested either specifying other aspects of legal capacity in addition to the financial aspect, or just making it a general statement about legal capacity, leaving it to each State to define what this includes. Yemen added that individuals unable to exercise full legal capacity on their own must be given assistance.

The Coordinator recalled the reason the WG specifically referenced financial matters was because PWD, in practice, are often precluded from exercising their legal capacity in this area. The reference to financial matters should not preclude PWD from exercising legal capacity in other areas.

Syria agreed with the concerns raised by Iran and Yemen, noting that a person with certain mental disabilities do not have legal capacity to manage financial affairs or appear in court. "This is simply a fact." A distinction must be made between types of disability. Language should be added to 9(f) regarding property, making distinctions based on the degree and nature of the disability. "Certain PWD have no legal capacity." This article is too general; it should specify which PWD do and do not have legal capacity.

Kenya (Africa Group) stated that financial matters could be addressed in 9(e) and will discuss that later. It proposed 9(b) be changed to read: "Accept that PWD have full legal capacity on an equitable basis with all others except as provided by law."

Canada asked delegations to use respectful language when discussing this Convention. Use of negative language may perpetuate negative stereotypes that this Convention addresses. For example, terms such as intellectual disabilities are preferable. Paragraph 9(b) gives rise to confusion. The Committee should carefully consider its proposed text. It explained some reasons why its 9(1) text may be needed. The term "full legal capacity" is not clear and may not reflect all legal systems in the world. Its proposed text uses the term "equal legal capacity," reflecting a key purpose of this Convention. By using the term "equality," Canada tries to address EU and Mexico's desire for this Article to reference "equality before the law," though this may not be enough and therefore is still open to discussion. The rest of its proposal, like the WG text, deals with the issue of legal capacity and sets out concrete examples of exercising legal capacity in order to give clarity. It is flexible regarding whether these examples should stay in the article. It proposed "States Parties shall recognize that PWD have a legal capacity equal to that of other persons and shall accord them equal opportunities to exercise that capacity. In particular, they shall recognize that PWD have equal rights to conclude contracts and to administer property and shall treat them equally in all stages of procedure in courts and tribunals." Exceptions should not be dealt with in this Convention; instead the Article should state the general principle of equal capacity, with no exception. There are situations where support is needed to exercise that capacity.

New Zealand agreed with Canada and supported its first paragraph to replace 9(b), because the Canadian proposal makes a distinction between assisted decision-making and substitute decision-making and is preferable to the African Group's proposal to add "except as provided by law." At one time guardianship was seen as a benign way to protect PWD; now it is seen as an intrusion into people's basic human rights. Therefore, there should be careful protections around substitute decision-making. Canada's proposal does this. The WG text of 9(d) mentions the rights of PWD to give evidence and act as witnesses; this is missing from Canada's proposal. It proposed adding this to Canada's proposal because often PWD are not considered credible witness and this is especially serious when they are a victim of a crime and are the only witness. It proposed adding on at the end of 9(1) which will replace 9(b): "including matters of giving evidence and acting as a witness."

Thailand supported New Zealand's and Canada's proposals, which keep the WG text's concepts. The word "including" in the WG text does not exclude other matters. The Coordinator is correct that the Article highlights financial matters because of the practices of some States. Exceptional circumstances, mentioned by several States, are addressed in 9(c).

The Coordinator noted that the issue of legal capacity goes to the heart of this Convention, and during the WG, was vigorously discussed.

The session was adjourned.



The Coordinator asked delegates to discuss whether they support the reference to financial matters in 9(b) as well as the proposed wording by Canada in 9(1) dealing with the practical ability of PWD to exercise full legal capacity. Summarizing, he noted that N ew Zealand pointed out that the WG text provides for assisted decision-making and that the Canadian proposal provides for both assisted and substitute decision-making. This was a difficult issue for the WG. Both texts must be seen in their totality because they both represent a progression. The WG version moves from legal capacity to assistance, the Canadian version from legal capacity to substitution.

Libya supported Syria and Yemen in terms of the kind of disability which should be exempted from full legal capacity. It firmly believes all PWD have full legal capacity except those with mental disabilities such as brain damage. This could work against people with other types of disabilities. For example, if there are no exceptions specified, someone who is paralyzed could be said not to have full legal capacity by a court. It would be better to say that all PWD enjoy full legal capacity except those with mental disorders.

The Coordinator pointed out that both the WG and Canadian texts distinguish between having legal capacity and exercising legal capacity. Everyone has legal capacity; however, there will be certain circumstances in which a person will have difficulty exercising that legal capacity. In such cases, both texts require giving assistance to allow PWD to exercise legal capacity. The WG text requires assisted decision-making and perhaps by implication, substituted decision-making, while 9(3) in the Canadian text explicitly addresses substituted decision-making, with a clear procedure. Neither text excludes any specific type of PWD from legal capacity, though both recognize that PWD may differ in their ability to exercise it. The Coordinator asked delegates to look closely at this important distinction before changing that structure. To deny people with certain disabilities legal capacity would be a significant change.

Costa Rica thanked the Coordinator for his wise comments. Article 9 is based on the premise that everyone has legal capacity, and that some need assistance. In order to provide protections for those needing assistance, Article 9 guarantees an independent, competent authority in accordance with the law. The Canadian proposal, 9(1), includes more than just legal capacity. It also refers to the right to administer and own property, to sign contracts, and to be equally involved in all legal procedures. Other delegations have suggested adding the right to be witnesses. If this Committee believes it is necessary to include all these issues, which Costa Rica does not support, it would propose two separate articles. Given that this Article is already very complex, further additions would prove difficult. Paragraph 9(b) of the WG text and 9(1) of the Canadian proposal are basically the same, except that the Canada proposal addresses more issues. It proposed changing 9(b) to read: "Recognize the legal capacity of PWD on an equal basis with others in all fields" (or "in all matters"). This avoids restrictive language. The cases requiring assistance for the exercise of legal capacity should be defined in 9(c). Costa Rica supported the EU's proposal for 9(c).

The EU expressed its view that Article 9 should state a strong, concise, and brief principle at the beginning, guaranteeing PWD equal rights before the law. PWD have the same rights and legal capacity as people without disabilities. It supported "equal rights before the law" and could support obligations or responsibilities, though these terms are not typically used in international legislation.

The Coordinator asked for delegations' positions on Costa Rica's proposed language for 9(b), referring to all fields, not just financial matters. He noted that some delegations find the WG text to be restrictive even though it uses the word "including." Another issue is whether delegations prefer the language of 9(b) or of 9(1).

India stated this article is important because it seeks to place PWD on equal footing with others as legal entities with legally enforceable rights, duties, and obligations. It supported the WG text for 9(a) and 9(b); however, it supported removal of financial matters because this may be seen as a limiting factor. It supported the Costa Rican formulation. Regarding 9(b), it recognizes the legal capacity of all PWD, but also recognizes some PWD will need varying amounts of support, depending on their disability, to exercise that right. It proposed adding to 9(b) a sentence about supported or assisted decision-making. It supported the language in the EU's 9(3).

Norway stated that throughout history there have been grim examples of discrimination against and denial of PWD on questionable legal grounds. This complex Article was inspired by CEDAW. There is a need to differentiate between women and PWD. A person who is blind or deaf should have full legal rights, however some PWD need some assistance to exercise legal capacity. But there are certain disabilities, for example serious learning disabilities, developmental disabilities, and major mental illness, which may prevent the person from representing his own interests and may create a need for protection. Norway cannot agree that everyone has legal capacity. Neither the WG text nor the Canadian text take into account the great diversity of disabilities and the need to assist or protect certain groups. It will be difficult to balance the need for protection with the necessity not to undermine the scope of the Convention. It supports the EU's proposal for 9(b): "Recognize PWD as individuals with equal rights before the law and guarantee equality before the law without discrimination against PWD." This is also an issue in Articles 10, 11 and 12.

The Coordinator asked for clarification from Norway regarding its statement that not all PWD have legal capacity. In response, Norway referenced CRC, which recognizes that the child has legal rights, but not necessarily legal capacity. Instead, legal capacity comes gradually. The Coordinator stated he would like to hear other opinions on this complex legal concept.

Brazil supported Costa Rica's proposal on 9(b) because it is broader than just financial matters, and because it does not contain any exceptions to the exercise of legal capacity. Exceptions are not necessary because 9(c) specifies when assistance would be given. In Brazil, a person with a severe mental disability has full legal capacity, though a tutor or assistant might be named to help the person exercise legal capacity.

Kenya stated that financial, property, and other issues are covered by 9(e), and could therefore be deleted from 9(b) so that they will not appear to be more important than other issues. Exceptions for PWD who need assisted or supported decision-making are covered in 9(c).

The Coordinator, trying to reach consensus on whether to keep "financial matters" in the text, asked Thailand, which spoke for retention, if it could support Costa Rica's proposed language, "in all fields." Thailand responded that it is flexible, but that the word "including" is not a limiting term; the phrase only means that financial matters should receive high attention. It could accept Costa Rica's proposal. Having full legal capacity is different than the ability to exercise it and should be dealt with differently. No disability should be singled out for a lower standard of legal capacity. The best approach can be found in 9(c), dealing with assistance. Paragraph 9(b) is based on the principle that no one has less legal capacity; this is much better than labeling certain disabilities as having less capacity.

Russian Federation agreed with the distinction the Coordinator made between legal capacity and the possibility for an individual to exercise that capacity. It explained the difficulty in translating to Russian. The language has two different concepts of legal capacity: One is the capacity of an individual to be a subject of law and have responsibilities and the other is capacity to exercise those rights and responsibilities. If this Committee decides to make any exceptions, the second concept and translation, concerning the capacity to act, should be adopted because the other type of legal capacity should not be limited. The wording of 9(a) is slightly different from the wording in other international conventions. This Convention should be the same as other human rights conventions. The Russian Federation suggested two ways of rewording 9(a) -- either "equality of each and every person before the law" or "equal rights." It objects to "equal rights before the law", because it substantially modifies the concepts found in CERD, CEDAW, and UDHR. It proposed revising 9(a) to read: "Recognize PWD as having rights equal to all other persons" or "Recognize that PWD have rights to equality before the law." It has some doubts about stressing financial matters in 9(b), and it does not fully understand what is meant by financial matters. It supports the Costa Rican proposal, because 9(e) in the WG text deals in a more detailed manner with financial matters. This Article should avoid mentioning specific areas of law.

The Coordinator announced that 9(a) of the WG text would be retained, and that there is consensus to delete financial matters from 9(b) and to use the Costa Rican language. He asked for more input about the Canadian and WG text as well as whether all PWD have legal capacity, an essential issue in both the texts.

Serbia and Montenegro agreed with Norway in many ways, and supported the EU's merger of 9(a) and (b). It, like Norway and the Russian Federation, has linguistic problems in relation to the concept of legal capacity. Serbia-Montenegro appreciates understanding the difference between having full legal capacity and exercising it; there are times that some PWD will be unable to exercise it. The EU proposal is preferable to the WG text, but if the latter is adopted financial matters should not be included. In response to the Coordinator's question about whether some PWD have no legal capacity, Norway has said that the presumption should be for full legal capacity, but there should be legal safeguards and exceptions. S-MN noted that other countries' delegations also have reservations about all PWD having full legal capacity.

The Coordinator asked whether there should be exceptions to legal capacity or just to its exercise. His impression of the group's consensus is that there will be exceptions to exercising legal capacity, but not to having legal capacity.

Yemen asserted that all people should be allowed to enjoy rights but not all may be capable of enjoying these rights. Legal duties and obligations should also be considered. It supported the Costa Rican proposal.

China agreed with the Russian Federation that the term "legal capacity" has different meanings. It recalled the WG discussion regarding the world's two legal systems, Continental and Anglo-Saxon. Legal capacity is difficult to translate into many other languages. The key is that PWD enjoy rights equal to others. China suggested thinking of some ways to avoid using the disputed term "legal capacity." The Canadian and African texts both have many favorable elements which could be combined as follows: "Recognize that PWD have a legal capacity on an equal basis with others as provided by the law and accord them equal opportunity to exercise that capacity."

The Coordinator stated that given the difficulties legal capacity is raising, maybe alternative language is needed. There are several options including the Chinese proposal which uses the first part of Canada's 9(1) referring to legal capacity, and the EU proposal which does not refer to legal capacity but instead reads, "Recognize PWD as individuals with equal rights before the law and guarantee equality before the law without discrimination against PWD." This issue of legal capacity is proving to be somewhat problematic. In some legal systems, it does not appear to be a problem, but in others it is a problem. Some legal systems appear to accept that everyone has legal capacity though some people may not be able to exercise it in every situation, while other legal systems do not accept that everyone has legal capacity. This is taking a lot of time, but it is a fundamental issue.

Chile stated that legal capacity is a fundamental right which must be recognized for all persons, including PWD, though the exercise of this right may be restricted. The country of Chile recognizes this right and distinguishes between the exercise of this right and the enjoyment of this right. In extreme cases, a tutor or guardian may need to be appointed to assist a person to exercise their rights. A person always is entitled to these rights, and should never be deprived of these rights.

The Coordinator stated that is also true in his country, but other countries have different systems and somehow this Committee needs to address both systems. China spoke of the differences between the Anglo-Saxon system and the Continental system. Neither Chile nor Brazil are part of the Anglo-Saxon legal system; they are much closer to the Continental legal system. The divide is not between these legal systems.

Argentina explained that its legal system is similar to most Latin American countries, in that all individuals have legal capacity and distinctions are made in exercising this right. It is aware of differences in the meaning of "legal capacity." This Committee needs to try to create uniform criteria. The EU's position causes concern because it does not have a generic provision that all persons have the same legal capacity before the law. If the term "legal capacity" is a problematic issue, another term should be found. It wants to avoid restricting legal capacity to the exercise of rights before the law. It is vital that this Article state that everyone has the same capacity to be subject to duties and obligations before the law. The EU's language "without discrimination against PWD" introduces discrimination into the article. Argentina supported Costa Rica's proposal. It also supported adding language which covers all legal systems, but this new wording should not open the way to any distinctions.

United Arab Emirates proposed an alternate draft to 9(b), reading: "Reassert that PWD enjoy equal legal capacity before the law in spite of their disabilities which may prevent their full enjoyment of that capacity."

Norway clarified its position. Everyone has rights; rights are inherent. It supported 9(a) and acknowledged that in certain cases, for certain people, 9(c) is needed. Just as a newborn baby has legal rights, but must mature into legal capacity, there are situations where an adult's legal capacity may be compromised by a disability. For example, an unconscious person needs someone to look after her/his interests, raising the question: Does this person have legal capacity? As another example, a person may commit a serious crime, but due to a major mental illness cannot be prosecuted.

The Coordinator acknowledged Norway's examples of limitations in exercising legal capacity, but this does not necessarily equate to a lack of legal capacity. Clearly children have no legal capacity, but they do acquire it at a certain age. And at certain ages children develop legal capacity for certain activities, such as entering contracts.

Thailand stated that legal capacity determines how disability is defined. It expressed support for the social model of disability, i.e., the idea that society imposes disability upon people. Limiting the legal capacity of PWD would reinforce the medical model of disability. This general provision in 9(b) does not need exceptions, because 9(c) deals with exceptions. This Committee has so far avoided defining disability in the Convention by characterizing type and/or severity, and it should not start doing so now.

Jamaica stated that the WG text's 9(b) is really referencing rights, not the exercise of legal capacity. People without disability with limited financial means are not able to exercise their legal capacity. At certain times in some countries, women were unable to exercise that right. The Jamaican delegate recalled that in her country, as a young married woman, she was not allowed to sign a legal document without her husband's permission or a lawyer to explain it; this has since been changed. There have often been assumptions that some people were not capable of having legal capacity, and PWD have for centuries suffered from this stereotype. This Convention must recognize legal capacity for PWD separately from the ability to exercise the capacity, which is dealt with in 9(c). Since there are different opinions about the meaning of the term "legal capacity," Jamaica proposed including a section containing definitions.

The Coordinator suggested looking at the EU language which combines 9(a) and (b) and does not use the term "legal capacity." He is still puzzled that in some countries, some PWD have no legal capacity. He presumes that all PWD, even those with serious disabilities, can inherit property, and can buy or sell property, even if this is done through a guardian. Even if handled by a guardian, the property is still registered in the name of the PWD. He asked whether this was not true in all countries.

Libya stated that the Committee is here to create a text which provides for the interests of PWD. It suggested postponing further discussion of this paragraph to allow legal experts to work on these important issues and to try to find a compromise. As a possible compromise, Libya proposed the following wording: "recognizing that all PWD have the right to exercise their legal capacity before the law." It opposes deleting "legal capacity."

Cuba asserted that the legal capacity of PWD is equal to that of all other members of society. The only limitation is on the exercise of this legal capacity. Assistance may be given in many ways; this is up to each State Party. This Convention should not restrict the concept of legal capacity; it should instead determine in what context assistance will be needed, in accordance with State Parties' laws, to exercise legal capacity. It proposed that the inherent right of legal capacity should be in this paragraph, i.e., "recognizing that PWD enjoy the same rights before the law."

New Zealand stated its desire to ensure that this Convention follows existing human rights instruments in establishing that all persons have legal capacity. In CEDAW, Article 15, paragraph 2 says: "States Parties shall accord to women in legal matters a legal capacity identical to that of men . . ." It might be useful to find out how the CEDAW language is translated; this could help solve the problem with the term "legal capacity." New Zealand supported Jamaica's statement, and pointed out that the right to legal capacity is often not realized for people with intellectual disabilities.

The Coordinator pointed out the language in CEDAW does not help in dealing with PWD, because it only deals with gender.

Jordan observed that the Committee agrees that legal capacity relates to the right of the individual, while legal incapacity relates to the inability to exercise this capacity. There are two kinds of capacity: potential legal capacity and actual legal capacity. Everyone has potential legal capacity, but some people lack actual legal capacity, that is, the ability to exercise it, and they may need assistance. This can be true of anyone, not just PWD. For example, under Islamic law a judge cannot pass sentence if he is hungry or angry because it could affect his mental faculties. The text should state that all PWD have legal rights, but not everyone can exercise those rights. Jordan supported Costa Rica's proposal to not limit that right.

Costa Rica agreed with Libya's suggestion to refer this issue to legal experts. It opposed the EU's proposal because it is redundant with 7(1) and does not solve the problem of legal capacity but only goes around it. In the Continental legal system, there is a difference between legal capacity and capacity to act; there is no such difference in the Anglo-Saxon system. All humans have full legal capacity, but the capacity to act involves the exercise of legal capacity as well as having rights and obligations. In Latin America, children have legal capacity, but are unable to exercise it until they reach a certain age. It proposed, as a solution to the translation problem, delineating full legal capacity and the ability to act. If translators use the correct language, there should be no problem. No system disallows inheritance by PWD; even if the inheritance is handled by a guardian, PWD are assumed to have legal capacity. This Convention should reject countries which do not acknowledge the legal capacity of PWD. Paragraph 9(b) needs to recognize legal capacity and 9(c) the exercise of legal capacity.

The Coordinator stated that although he agrees with Costa Rica, he has heard a few colleagues say that some PWD have no legal capacity. He understood Norway and China to say that some PWD have no legal capacity. If they meant the ability to act, there may be a solution; however, if there is a more fundamental difference, there may be no way to use the term "legal capacity."

Mexico echoed Cuba's and Brazil's support for the Costa Rican proposal. Some people need assistance to exercise legal capacity. Types of disabilities should not be listed; this would be based on a medical model of disability. This Committee needs to ensure that different legal systems are compatible for the purpose of protecting PWD, by inserting a final clause, applicable particularly to Article 9 and 14, reading: "This Convention shall affect any provisions that are not more conducive to the full enjoyment of full human rights and fundamental freedoms and the dignity of PWD which may be contained in (a) the law or practice of the State Party or (b) any other international convention, treaty or agreement in force for that State."

Australia suggested that the way to get beyond the impasse between capacity and the exercise of capacity is to understand that the Convention puts obligations on States Parties, not on individuals. So States Parties should recognize capacity first and then address the exercise of capacity, with or without necessary assistance or, in extreme cases, with substitute decision-making to the minimum extent required and accompanied by safeguards. The Canada proposal follows this logic. Even in jurisdictions where PWD are not recognized as having the capacity to inherit property, they must still be recognized as having legal capacity before the law. For example, if violence happens against them, the law still recognizes them as victims of violence. Perhaps the issue is the term "full"; legal capacity is legal capacity, and no qualifier is necessary. Australia supported Canada's proposal.

The Coordinator agreed that one of the issues is the meaning of legal capacity. There is a certain amount of cross-purpose discussion among delegations from different legal systems. Under all systems PWD, no matter how severe their disability, are people under the law and entitled to its protections. There may be limitations on what that person can do in terms of exercising rights or how they exercise those rights. If legal capacity means juridical capacity, everyone has it. However, if legal capacity means capacity to act, then not everyone has it in all systems. This is not just a translation issue; rather, different concepts are being discussed. After the next three speakers, the Committee will move on to 9(c), concerning the exercise of legal capacity, and this discussion may clarify the issue.

Thailand stated that if this Convention does not differentiate between legal capacity and the ability to exercise that capacity, a country could pass a law to prohibit PWD from entering the legal profession. This has happened before. Some countries prohibit PWD from being lawyers, believing they have no or lesser legal capacity.

China wanted to focus on practical concepts, not theoretical ones. The equal rights of PWD are not in doubt. PWD should be able to exercise their rights and use their abilities. At issue is the understanding and translation of the term "legal capacity." This Committee needs to avoid misunderstandings. If "legal capacity" refers only to rights and entitlements, and not to the capacity to act, this concept should be supported. China suggested looking at its proposal. It also supported the Costa Rican proposal.

The Coordinator stated that if "legal capacity" means legal entitlement and rights and recognition as a person before the law, rather that the capacity to act, the Committee may move forward.

Serbia and Montenegro stated that if legal capacity means only juridical capacity, that is rights and responsibilities, it could accept 9(b). It pointed out that this is an issue in other countries also.

The Coordinator asked delegations whether there was any remaining opposition to 9(b). Hearing no opposition, he asked for discussion of 9(c) of the WG text which, like 9(2) and 9(3) of the Canadian text, deals with situations where assistance is needed to exercise legal capacity. The Canadian text goes further than the WG text because it specifically provides for substitute decision-making, in addition to assistance.

Canada asked delegations to consider supporting 9(2) as an alternative to 9(c)(1), and 9(3) as an alternative to 9(c)(2) which is ambiguous about substitute decision-makers. There may be situations where supported decision-making is not sufficient. It acknowledged that there may be better ways to draft its proposed language.

Kenya (Africa Group) supported keeping 9(c)(i) with minor amendments, keeping 9(c)(ii) with major amendments, and adding a new 9(c)(iii). In 9(c)(i) it proposed changing "interfere with" to "undermine." It changed 9(c)(ii) to read: "Relevant decisions are taken by a competent, independent, and impartial authority in accordance with a procedure established by law and with the application of relevant legal safeguards including periodic review." This ensures that not just anyone would be assigned to provide this assistance, and it adds periodic review. It proposed adding 9(c)(iii), to read as follows: "Provide persons with disabilities with adequate support services to develop networks for supported decision-making." This addition would encourage support groups providing information and help PWD in making decisions. Decision-making assistants should not be limited to parents and others; PWD can also assist other PWD.

New Zealand expressed its belief that protections should be included in 9(c), particularly where there is a potential for abuse. It proposed adding, either to 9(c) in the WG draft or to 9(2) of Canada's draft, the words "shall respect the will and preferences of the person receiving support, shall be free from conflicts of interest and shall not involve undue influence." The protections described in 9(c)(ii) are too ambiguous and 9(3) goes too far. New Zealand proposed deleting the first sentence of Canada's 9(3), "Only a competent, independent and impartial authority, under a standard and procedure established by law, including provision for review, can find a person unable to exercise their legal capacity with support." The rest of 9(3), including 9(3)(a) and 9(3)(b), should be retained. Overall, Canada's proposal is useful. However, its reference to "a competent, independent and impartial authority" suggests an adversarial system, and the appointment of a personal representative need not necessarily take place within the context of an adversarial system. New Zealand agreed that a process does need to be established in law.

The EU supported Canada's approach, in which 9(2) addresses necessary support, and 9(3) provides legal guarantees for PWD when there is a loss or limitation in their ability to exercise legal capacity.

Costa Rica preferred using the more concise WG text over the Canadian and African Group texts, all of which, it noted, are similar in content. Although it has no objections to including examples, the examples included thus far do not comprise an exhaustive list. Therefore, Costa Rica supported the African Group's proposal because it is based on the WG text. Based on the discussions about 9(b), the term "legal capacity" should be deleted from 9(c)(i) since legal capacity cannot be undermined. Costa Rica proposed revising 9(c)(i) to read, "Such assistance is adequate to meet the person's needs and does not undermine his/her rights and freedoms." This would ensure that the assistance is proportional to the person's needs. It is also willing to accept the African Group's proposal. Regarding 9(c)(ii), the WG text is ambiguous, and so Costa Rica favors the original EU proposal, amended as follows: "Relevant decisions are taken by a competent, independent, and impartial authority in accordance with a procedure established by law and with the application of relevant legal safeguards including provisions for periodic review." It is important to have clarity on the concepts and criteria. Costa Rica stated that it would be willing to support Canada's proposal, but expressed concern that the proposal establishes "a list which might unnecessarily extend the scope of this Convention."

Chile mentioned that with regard to the procedures for appointing tutors or guardians, States Parties must ensure that PWD also receive appropriate legal safeguards, legal assistance and support to protect their rights.

Serbia and Montenegro supported Canada's proposal and expressed interest in New Zealand's proposal. It suggested merging the two into a single, even better text.

Colombia suggested that Korean and Ugandan proposed amendments to Article 13(e), on assisting PWD to access information, might make the Canadian proposal redundant. It proposed adding to these amendments in Article 13 a list of the forms of support and assistance to be provided for PWD to exercise their legal capacity. In that case, Colombia would support the African Group's proposal. Alternatively, it could also support the African Group's suggested addition of 9(c)(iii).

The Russian Federation called for a compromise between the very different proposals of the EU and the Africa Group, using some of the elements from the Canadian proposal.

The Coordinator asked delegates to look at the various proposals. He stated that the African Group's proposal, based on the WG text, is similar to the Canadian proposal. In the African Group's text, the assistance must be "proportional"; this term is qualified by the phrase "to the extent possible." This may be confusing, but he believes this means that people who require a great deal of assistance should receive that assistance to the extent that is possible for States Parties. The WG text and Canadian text both focus on limiting the amount of assistance to what the PWD actually needs, in order to ensure that PWD can make their own decisions as much as possible. Redrafting may be able to capture both concepts. The other difference between the WG text and African Group's text involves the terms "interfere" and "undermine." "Undermine" may be the transferable term. This concept is not in the Canadian text, but it could be added.

Thailand supported the WG text, but sees merit in the Canadian proposal, and would like to see how they might be merged. It appreciates New Zealand's additions to the Canadian proposal and hopes these may also be consolidated with the WG text.

The Coordinator asked the facilitator to draft language combining elements of the various proposals to meet the concerns raised by delegations. He asked interested delegations to meet with the facilitator after the meeting. The second task which needs to be done overnight is to draft language making clear the meaning of the term "legal capacity," such as "PWD have full legal capacity (which shall mean . . .) on an equal basis with others on all matters." Delegates with concerns should also speak to the facilitator.

The session was adjourned.

The Fifth Ad Hoc Committee Daily Summaries is a public service by RI*, a global network promoting the Rights and Inclusion of people with disabilities. RI extends its sincere gratitude to the Kessler Foundation (, the Government of New Zealand, and the UN Secretariat’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs for their generous support.

The Daily Summaries are translated into French by Handicap-International and into Spanish by the Inter-American Institute on Disability.

They are available online in accessible formats at;; and

Reporters for the 5th Session are Michele Magar, Robin Stephens, Bethany Stevens and Jitka Senecka. Editors are Laura Hershey and Zahabia Adamaly. For comments and feedback please write to:

Anyone wishing to disseminate the Summaries and/or translate them into additional languages is encouraged to do so, with the request that you please retain the above crediting language - thank you.

* The Daily Summaries do not reflect the views of Rehabilitation International.

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

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