Skip navigation links Sitemap | About us | FAQs

UN Programme on Disability   Working for full participation and equality

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

Daily summary of discussion at the sixth session
02 August 2005

Disclaimer

Original MS Word version
Languages: French

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 7, #2
August 02, 2005

 

 

 

MORNING SESSION

 

The Secretary announced the publication by the International Disability Caucus of a manual to orient new arrivals to the AHC.

Article 15 bis – Women With Disabilities

The Chair advised that there is no specific provision in the Working Group text with regard to women with disabilities. There is a specific Article on children with disabilities. At AHC3 the Republic of Korea proposed a new draft article (15 bis) for insertion before article 16 on women with disabilities. There was no discussion of the substance of this article. However there was discussion on the placement of issues specific to women with disabilities, whether they should be placed in a separate article or incorporated into the text.

Republic of Korea highlighted the need for both a “focused and extensive” mention on women with disabilities. During the subsequent 4th and 5th sessions it held discussions with interested governmental and nongovernmental delegations on the issue. The plight of women with disabilities is not the simple sum of the barriers faced by people with disabilities and the barriers faced by women. The combination of their disabilities and inferior status as women goes beyond the mechanical doubling of discrimination to a situation of utter social alienation and policy neglect. Women with disabilities have remained invisible in legislative and policy efforts at both national and international levels, without an anchor in disability discourse or women’s rights discourse. The existing global norms, either on persons with disabilities or on women’s rights, directly reflect this lack of attention and offer little in terms of concrete or action orientated language addressing women with disabilities.
A separate article on the rights of women with disabilities is a vital element of a convention on the rights of people with disabilities, in addition to references to gender in the general provisions.
Korea acknowledges the concerns of other delegations with regard to “listing” and emphasized that it would resist the drafting becoming such an exercise. Women with disabilities comprise half the subject population of this convention and gender is a cross cutting dimension of a different order than other defining characteristics of vulnerability. It is for the same reason that Korea also supports a separate article on children with disabilities. Delegations have also noted that a separate article risks the danger of relegating the rights of women with disabilities to the provisions of that article only. Korea however is more concerned with the opposite danger - with gender equality mentioned in the general provisions without a specific article on women with disabilities, women with disabilities could slip through the fingers of the government ministries in charge of implementation of the convention. Full implementation of the convention for all PWD requires the active involvement and sense of shared ownership by the national machineries in charge of promoting gender equality. A separate article would ensure this. Gender mainstreaming alone in insufficient. A more effective way is to have a separate article complemented by the incorporation of gender in the most relevant provisions of the convention. This would produce a convention that would truly be an efficacious tool in protecting and promoting the rights and dignities of all persons with disabilities.

El Salvador supported the comments made by Korea and drew attention to the plight of older people and particularly older women with disabilities. Gender and gender mainstreaming in this convention is fundamental in order to provide adequate protection from a social development perspective as well as from a human rights perspective.

Morocco supported Korea and El Salvador, noting that the introduction of this article is in harmony with the recommendations of the Casablanca Declaration (June 2005).

EU strongly believes that this convention must apply equally to all persons with disabilities. (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6eu.htm) The EU shares the concerns of Korea that the consequences of disabilities are particularly severe for women, who are often subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability but also to social, cultural and economic disadvantages due to gender discrimination. In many countries, women are assigned a very low status socially, economically and politically, which is accentuated by disability. Girls and women with disabilities are often marginalized, neglected and considered a burden on society. Women represent a majority of the population and an even higher proportion of persons with disabilities.
It is a challenge to right the wrongs of the additional discrimination faced by women with disabilities, while ensuring a very strong convention which will apply equally to all persons with disabilities.
There are a number of sectors of society, including indigenous women with disabilities and elderly women with disabilities, which face particular disadvantages but it would do this convention a disservice to have a number of articles focusing on specific groups, as it would then lack a strong statement on the rights of all persons with disabilities. Hence the EU’s resistance to proposals that single out PWD by severity or type of impairment. The convention would be stronger, more authoritative and more beneficial to people with disabilities if its provisions apply equally to all disabled people, and there was no “picking and choosing” of rights and standards. Such a convention would then also be stronger and more authoritative for women with disabilities.
There could be confusion between the interpretations of CEDAW or CRC and this convention. There could be the suggestion that CEDAW and CRC are inadequate for the protection of the rights of women and children with disabilities. There have been inadequacies in the implementation of those conventions with respect to women and children with disabilities, both by states and monitoring bodies; however, this is not a reason to create legal uncertainty between 2 treaties or an uneven comparison between disabled men and disabled women. Instead this is a reason to examine CEDAW and its implementation, make it better and get it right. An example of such legal uncertainty lies in the inclusion of violence against women. While this may serve to provide further protection for women with disabilities it detracts from a general article on abuse, leaving men with disabilities in weaker position, when men are also very vulnerable to such abuse. It is generally agreed that CEDAW and CRC provide a comprehensive framework for the protection of the rights of women and children.
The EU would like to see a reference to the susceptibility of women with disabilities to multiple forms of discrimination in the preamble and a reference in the general obligations (Article 4) that would apply horizontally throughout the Convention text and obligate states to bear in mind the equality between women and men when interpreting other articles.

New Zealand supported the EU proposals.

Australia supported the position of the EU. Obligations under this convention will apply to all people with disabilities. Australia does not support mechanisms that compartmentalize women with disabilities; however, it would support recognition of the particular vulnerabilities of women with disabilities in the preamble.
Consideration needs to be given to the focus of the convention. Discrimination against women is specifically addressed in CEDAW and it is not appropriate for this new instrument to duplicate other major human rights treaties, particularly outside the area of disability discrimination.
The potential duplication of rights will make monitoring mechanisms difficult. The potential for different interpretations of existing human rights would make the implementation of the range of human rights instruments difficult.
All articles should be interpreted considering the needs of specific population groups. This view is reflected in the Australian proposal on the Convention structure submitted at AHC5, and in the report of the Asia Pacific Forum of national human rights institutions submitted at AHC4. These groups include: women, children, people living in rural and remote areas, indigenous people, and older people.

The Chair observed that the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) article 23 references disability, but there is no such reference in CEDAW. This is a difference between the two conventions. However the CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation 18 (A/46/38) highlights the situation of disabled women.

Mexico expressed concern with drafting separate articles on specific groups. Women and children could be mentioned in the preamble laying down the principles of equality and non-discrimination without undermining the equal treatment of men and women with disabilities.

Serbia-Montenegro supported the position of the EU and other delegations, as it had in AHC3, agreeing that there should be no specific articles on marginalized groups. It is flexible on references to gender throughout the text but would prefer enshrining the principle of gender equality to the preamble and general obligations only.

Thailand supported the Korean delegation’s attempt to bring attention to the barriers faced by women with disabilities, while understanding the concerns raised by the EU.
This process should ensure that the rights of disabled women are taken care of by this convention so they would be no longer left out either by mainstream women’s communities or by mainstream disability communities.

Yemen supported the idea of a separate article while understanding the concerns of the EU. The inclusion of a specific article on women in this convention should not weaken CEDAW or any other convention. In some communities, non-disabled women are struggling to achieve their rights, and so the situation of disabled women in such communities is a particularly marginalized one.

Mali supported the proposal of a separate article because women with disabilities are a marginalized group. The committee has already accepted this principle previously.

Japan supported the position of EU, Australia, Mexico and others. Women should be mentioned in the preamble rather than the operative part of the text. Women with disabilities suffer double discrimination but they are not the only group, as the elderly, racial minorities and indigenous people with disabilities also face double discrimination. It is better to avoid listing specific groups and include them in general obligations.

Norway supported the position of the EU. This convention is about persons with disabilities, meaning both sexes, men and women. It has long been recognized that there is a need for gender sensitivity and therefore it is well justified that gender aspects and the situation and needs of women are reflected in this convention text. The question is how.

Israel called for a separate article, emphasizing the “intrinsic rightness” of the Korean position noting that women make up more than half the population and suggesting that the concerns put forth by the EU on a separate article do not reflect disagreements of principle and can be resolved with careful and intelligent drafting. “If we disregard women in any way, it would be a grave mistake.”

Costa Rica supported the systematic integration of gender throughout the convention. The elements submitted by Korea are all important but, for the reasons noted by the EU and other delegations, it would be too risky to couch them in a specific article. This would run counter to what has been the practice in drafting other legal instruments. Article 3 of CEDAW for example makes it clear that all state parties have to address and mainstream gender issues in all spheres in particular in the political, economic, social and cultural fields and to take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures to ensure the full development and advancement of women in order to guarantee their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with men. By drawing up a separate article in this Convention, it would suggest that our commitment to Article 3 of CEDAW is no longer valid or that CEDAW does not apply to women with disabilities.

Kenya supported a separate article noting the general agreement of the practical realities facing women with disabilities especially in patriarchial systems, and the need to make the rights of women with disabilities prominent. (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6kenya.htm)
Having a separate article will not take away from the rights of disabled men. Women with disabilities are not a disability sector but cut across all sectors. Women with disabilities should be accorded their rightful place within this convention.

Sudan supported a separate article. There are different ways of dealing with this specificity. A point can be arrived at whereby the article does not contradict or contravene other conventions.

Jordan supported the idea in substance of enshrining gender equality within the convention but had reservations regarding a separate article. The convention will be stronger in language and structure if there are no articles for specific populations.

Chile welcomed the principle of gender equality in the preamble and general obligations with the possibility of consideration elsewhere. CEDAW has not done enough to advance the situation of disabled women. The inclusion of women in this convention would not undermine other conventions, but would provide greater clarity.

Uganda supported the inclusion of an article on women with disabilities. Disabled people are not visible in the other conventions where their rights are protected; hence the need to draft this convention on the rights of disabled people. Likewise the rights of disabled women cannot be ignored because there is CEDAW, because the rights of disabled women are violated every day. They suffer multiple forms of discrimination. They are often the poorest of the poor. The content of the article can be worked out but in the interest of consistency the principle of a separate article must be accepted.

Iran supported a separate article and inclusion in both the preamble and general obligations but suggested the whole convention be gender mainstreamed.

South Africa supported a separate article. Gender equality is necessary for mainstreaming and the equalization of opportunities for disabled women. Progressive realization of the rights of women within the convention must be ensured. The principle of self-representation is critical to addressing discrimination against women with disabilities. There must be self-executing legislation that empowers women with disabilities at all levels of society. If there is no separate article specifically for women with disabilities, problems of exclusion and poverty, which affect women at all levels of society, remain.

Canada noted that women with disabilities have been recognized as a particularly disadvantaged group in a number of international documents including the Beijing Platform for Action (BPA). All delegations agree that issues specific to women with disabilities should be included in this convention. The issue before the committee is how best to achieve this goal. Canada supports gender mainstreaming throughout the convention instead of a separate article.
The current preamble Paras (m) and (n) are not sufficient. Building on the ideas reflected in proposals from the EU, Korea, other delegations and the Disabled Peoples International discussion paper “Towards Visibility of Women with Disabilities in the UN Convention” Canada proposed that there should in addition be: [1] a clear principle in Article 2 guaranteeing the equal protection of the rights of women along the lines of ICCPR Article 3; [2] a general obligation in Article 4 requiring states parties to mainstream a gender perspective in all policies and programs relating to persons with disabilities; [3] specific references in the key articles of particular concern to women, eg in 7, 12, 14(bis), 17, 21, and 22. Women and girls are already mentioned in 23.1(b).

Peru preferred to have a separate article because, in many cases, the rights of women and girls have not been fully guaranteed. “We need to go further than CEDAW to guarantee, promote and protect the rights of women and girls with disabilities”.

India noted the specific challenges faced by women with disabilities, and that they should be addressed in this convention. Having a separate article may not be the only option; the issue can be addressed by making a reference to women specific aspects in all the generic provisions of the convention wherever such a reference is required. This would avoid the danger of lowering the standards of protections, which have already been agreed in other women specific conventions.


Statements from NGOs and NHRI

The Korean Women’s nongovernmental organisations as the International Disability Caucus coordinator for Article 15(bis), noted that mainstream women’s organizations are not interested in disabled women’s issues since disability is too specific and not of political benefit or interest. The UN Commission on the Status of Women considers these issues a burden on the already heavy workloads of women’s organizations. There is a need for a separate article on the rights of women with disabilities for the same reason that there was a need for a new convention on the rights of people with disabilities. Disabled women experience intersecting discrimination because of their gender, disability, traditional, religious, and cultural backgrounds, as well as their economic and political situations and their needs must be expressed in a clear and explicit way. In addition to a separate article, gender should be included in the general obligations under Article 4 and the preamble.

Disabled Peoples’ International emphasized that women are not a group but comprise more than half of disabled people. To date, there are no legally binding documents that protect women with disabilities, so it is essential that this issue be included in this convention. A single article alone on women’s issues is insufficient and may be counter productive as CRC indicates. Women’s issues need to be covered throughout the convention. The principles of [1] gender mainstreaming, [2] equality between women and men and [3] the need for particular actions to eliminate the discriminations faced by women with disabilities must be enshrined in a separate article or integrated in articles 2 and 4. All articles must be complemented by a gender perspective and mainstreamed to identify and address the needs of disabled women. The convention must include the gender aspect as intended under UN resolution 52/100, 1997/1998. It is the only way to motivate states parties to take action on gender and disability issues. Disabled women’s rights are human rights.
European Disability Forum Women’s Committee
highlighted the fact that CEDAW does not mention disabled women. Instead they are mentioned in the Beijing Platform for Action, which, however is not a legally binding document. Due to the absence of disabled women in CEDAW, a medical model, oppressive approach to their situation persists. Yemen made a link to the cultural and historic inequalities between women and men in society. The societal conditions for non-disabled women are only slowly changing. If disabled women are not specifically mentioned in this Convention their situation will similarly reflect this slow pace of change. There is a North/ South, East/ West divide with respect to including or excluding the gender approach. The representative pointed out some examples that help explain the specificities of disabled women. Disabled men may have better access to employment because they are seen as breadwinners. Disabled women are more often deprived of medical care. Disabled men have better access to mobility devices because they are seen as more important contributors to society. The EDF calls on delegates to accept the Canadian proposal.

The Chair noted that states positions on this issue did not in his view reflect a breakdown along North – South, East – West relations. He hoped that future negotiations would not reflect such a breakdown.

Council of Canadians with Disabilities was encouraged by the support for enshrining the rights of women with disabilities in this convention. Women with disabilities face discrimination on a daily basis, being treated inferior to men, to men with disabilities and to non-disabled women. The council urges the all delegations to make a strong statement against these inequities by enshrining the rights of women with disabilities both in a stand-alone article as well as mainstreaming throughout the convention. Unless such a twin-track approach is used, disabled women will continue to face denial of our rights.

Dr. Sigrid Arnade spoke in an independent expert capacity to highlight the following: [1] Women are not a “group” but make up more than 50% of disabled people. Disabled women’s issues are gender issues, not those of a group. [2] There are no legally binding UN documents referring to disabled women. [3] The EU published a report in the 1990s entitled “Invisible citizens” about disabled people. While people with disabilities are becoming more visible, however, disabled women remain invisible even within this convention. [4] All states must adhere to the principle of gender mainstreaming but the gender perspective has not been included. [5] The efforts of the government of Korea have been crucial to highlighting this issue. [6] A single article referring to women’s issues is not sufficient and may be counterproductive. [7] There should be a twin track approach, which consists of a separate article with gender mainstreamed throughout the convention. Such a twin-track approach would eliminate the invisibility of disabled women.

World Blind Union asserted that it is time for the fundamental human rights of these women to be enshrined in a legally binding document. If this cannot be done because there are other human rights treaties guaranteeing the rights of women, then by the same logic a convention on the rights of PWD would not be justified either. The use of gender-neutral language would be dangerous. There must be a twin track approach.

National Human Rights Institutions recognized the general support among delegations for the inclusion of a gender perspective. The NHRIs support the Canadian position. Gender should be mainstreamed throughout the convention whether in addition to a separate article or not. The NHRIs are neutral on 15(bis) but would like to avoid the mistake of Article 23 of the CRC, perceived as locking children with disabilities into one article and creating the impression that they are only entitled to the rights within that article. Should there be a separate article, then it should be a precise statement of principles, without going into specifics. General obligations should have a clear reference to the positive obligation on states to remove all obstacles in the enjoyment of rights for women with disabilities. This would set the tone for a program to undo the disadvantages caused by inequality and discrimination faced by women across all sectors and cultures. There should be a specific reference to gender-segregated data in Article 6. Article 24 should reflect the need for states to produce reports in a gender-segregated fashion should that be a requirement to a new treaty body.

The Chair highlighted the expressions of deep appreciation from all delegations to Korea for the importance its delegation attached to this issue, in raising its profile, and in allocating the resources to do so. He introduced several national parliamentarians from Korea present at the meeting. The Korean efforts have generated a significant response.
He noted general agreement that the situation faced by disabled women is more than just the combined disadvantage of disability and gender. Women are at particular risk of sexual exploitation, poverty, and many other factors. There should be a systematic and comprehensive approach to the inclusion of disabled women. As stressed by the WBU, legally binding obligations are required. CEDAW focuses on the elimination of discrimination whereas CRC focuses on comprehensive rights and therefore the two cannot be compared. Taking into account that divergence among states on this issue was mainly with respect to placement rather than substance, the Chair appointed a Facilitator to hold consultations on the systematic coverage of the rights of disabled women within the text. This exercise will highlight the gaps and outline what issues have yet to be addressed. He noted the NHRI call for a precise and principled statement should there be a separate article. Language for the general obligations can be decided on at a later stage, along with the need for a separate article after gender mainstreaming throughout the text.


Korea appreciated the arguments both in favour of and against a separate article. It agreed that a single article is not sufficient to cover all the issues faced by disabled women but after gender mainstreaming throughout the text there will still be issues that require a separate article. This issue needs to be included in the preamble and general obligations. There are separate conventions on women and children and therefore there should be a logical progression to separate articles. Women and children are not sub groups but are crosscutting sections of society. There is no intention to weaken CEDAW in any way. In language, CEDAW is a very comprehensive convention that should be addressed to all women with or without disabilities. However, in reporting and implementation, women with disabilities have been sidelined and not mentioned in the implementation process, reporting process, or the monitoring process. With careful and intelligent crafting of language, it is possible to make the two reinforce and complement each other.

Article 16 – Children With Disabilities

The Chair introduced the Facilitator from Kenya for this article and drew attention to Footnote 54, which notes that Paras 2, 3 and 4, are based on Article 23 of CRC. CRC Article 23 has been seen by some as counterproductive on the rights of children with disabilities. When States Parties report on compliance they normally do so article by article; due to the specific article on children with disabilities there has been a tendency not to mainstream disability throughout the CRC. At the same time there is agreement that inclusion of Article 23 has been influential and useful in highlighting and identifying issues faced by disabled children. The Chair called for comments to address the issue of having a specific article on children as well as any substantive issues within the article.

The EU put forward the same reservations they had with regard to a separate article on women with disabilities while acknowledging the difference between women and children. It would be logical to apply the same principles in regards of the rights contained in this convention to rights in general. There is a danger of listing in order to try to be inclusive. There is also the danger that the rights in a single article may not apply horizontally throughout the convention.
The CRC sets out the general principle that children enjoy the same rights as adults and looks to identify where those rights need to be enhanced. Article 23 of CRC may not have been entirely counterproductive but in hindsight it has been inadequate. It relates to the care of children with disabilities, and the provision of some services. Yet in their reporting to the CRC Committee States have focused on article 23 in relation to children with disabilities. They have not mainstreamed the problems faced by children with disabilities as regard the rights contained in CRC more generally.
Article 23 has done little to promote the general position of children with disabilities in society. For the same reason separating out children in one article of this convention would not adequately meet their needs.
The language in Article 16 is based on but not identical to that of CRC Article 23. This risks a lack of clarity in rights, competing obligations, and a confusion of the language and legal standing of the rights contained therein. Listing, as reflected in the footnote on groups of children with disabilities, should be avoided.
Para 1 and 2 is the core issue, of states ensuring that children with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as other children. To eliminate the problem of a draft article being concentrated at the expense of other articles, this language should be moved to a more general, horizontal provision like Article 4. The rest of the article, from Para 3 onwards are dealt with elsewhere in the convention. To have different wording on the provision of care for children, although it is a special circumstance, as regards the provision of care in other articles for the general population of PWD risks confusion in the level of rights or new rights or different rights for certain sectors of society.
There should be a reference to the rights of children in the Preamble: (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6eu.htm). “Children with disabilities should have full enjoyment of all human rights on an equal basis with others, without discrimination on the basis of disability, and recalling obligations to that end undertaken by states parties to CRC.” This would be a sufficiently strong statement aiding in the interpretation of this treaty, setting the rights of children with disabilities in the context of the rest of the articles that follow. There should also be a general reference under article 4 similar to that for women with disabilities: “Urging or requiring states to take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights without discrimination of any kind based on disability”. This would address the issues in the second half of Article 16 on the provision of care and services.

New Zealand noted the lack of time faced by the Working Group in drafting this article, and the inadequacy of an approach where language is “cut and pasted” from one convention to another. This is a “weak link” in an otherwise strong WG text. Firstly, as this is essentially a copy of CRC Article 23, it does not add to the body of international human rights law or to the obligations on states parties. Secondly, the few amendments to Article 23 that are incorporated into Article 16 create inconsistencies and the possibility of competing obligations, eg. in Article 23, children with disabilities “should enjoy a full and decent life”, while in Article 16 they have “a right to enjoy a full and inclusive life”. Thirdly and most importantly, there are a number of issues that are not raised in this article that should be covered. This includes, for example, the situations of orphaned and abandoned children with disabilities; the need for disabled children under the protection of the State to live in family rather than institutional settings (best dealt with in Article 14); early intervention in relation to identification of impairments and adequate support at the appropriate developmental time, such as access to language and communication so babies with disabilities especially can thrive and survive (best dealt with in the article on the right to health).
There are a number of other important issues as outlined in the IDC proposal (www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6contngos.htm). It would be appropriate to have a shorter thematic statement, either in Article 4 as suggested by the EU or as a separate article on children, that all existing rights in the CRC, in this convention and in other human rights treaties apply to children with disabilities. A good formulation of that is either the EU proposed article 4 or the IDC Para 7. The specific issues raised above and in the IDC proposal could be included in the thematic articles throughout the convention.
NZ suggests that the facilitator for this article adopt a similar role as that for 15(bis) on women with disabilities, to ensure that the convention as a whole applies to the rights of children with disabilities, with a statement that all rights under the CRC apply to children with disabilities.

 

 


AFTERNOON SESSION


Article 16 - Children with Disabilities (cont)

Jordan supported the NZ proposals which were in accordance with Jordan’s proposals for 15 bis.

The Holy See called for further strengthening Paras 2, 3, and 4 of the WG text with language agreed upon in the CRC. It proposed replacing 16.1 with: “States Parties recognize that children, especially children with disabilities, by reason of their physical and mental immaturity, need special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth… “ at www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6holysee.htm. In 16.2 it proposed inserting the words “inherent” before “dignity and worth…”

Serbia-Montenegro supported the position of the EU and New Zealand for the deletion of Paras 2, 3, and 4. They duplicate the subject matter of the CRC, and the slight amendments from the CRC may lead to problems in implementation. There is a need instead for an introductory, more generalized paragraph, similar to either WG text 16.1 or as proposed by the EU. It is flexible on placement but would prefer this language to be in a more generalized article. Para 2 (bis) of the text proposed by Canada in AHC3 (A/AC/265/2004/5 pp 36) has added value, and, regardless of placement, should be maintained. It supports the concept of the provision of mainstream services to children with disabilities under equal conditions as covered in IDC proposal Para 5, though its wording is too specific. There is merit in the New Zealand proposal to include language on abandonment and abuse etc, appropriate in Article 12, and the preference for children in family settings over institutions, more appropriate in Article 14(bis).

Chile pointed out that the main purpose of the article is protection for those PWD who require it most: disabled infants and children. It supported NZ position on abandoned children with disabilities, and the need to provide support to parents who adopt them so that they are not placed in non-segregated environments. Legislation should address the problems of children and the broad range of rights covered by CRC.

Mexico supported the New Zealand proposal and called for language that would address the specific circumstances faced infants and children with disabilities, that would not simply reproduce what was already established in other international instruments. This language should have added value and be in both a separate paragraph and integrated throughout the convention.

Korea welcomed the inclusion of article 16 as it addresses the specific needs of a particularly vulnerable group. This article can be strengthened to alleviate the fears of other delegates of the inadequacy of the current language copying CRC Article 23. In this regard Korea agrees with other delegations on the need to mention forced institutionalization, abuse, abandonment and sexual exploitation in relation to children with disabilities, is flexible on placement, and is ready to assist in drafting such language.

Liechtenstein emphasized that this convention should provide the best protection for children with disabilities. A separate article does not necessarily achieve that goal best. There are legally binding standards in CRC and there are many issues that are dealt with in other articles covering issues and rights that children are entitled to as much as others. There is some risk of creating double standards if specific issues are mentioned here in relation to children that other persons with disabilities are equally entitled. If a separate article is necessary, it cannot provide double standards. In Para 1, “within their jurisdiction” should be deleted because the population to whom these rights apply and questions of the scope of the convention are dealt with in Article 4.

Israel supported the inclusion of this article, just as they had supported the separate article on women with disabilities. Children become adults and states should invest as much as possible in them. It also supported the position of the IDC, and that of NZ. It suggested including a new paragraph (www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6israel.htm). A child should be regarded as a human being with feelings and emotions. An eloquently formulated article cannot be implemented if it is not accessible. If the right is stated but there are no special facilities to enable these rights to be realised, then the goals have not been reached. Each human rights instrument should be seen as part of the range of instruments as a whole, so referencing them is needed.

Russian Federation supported the inclusion of a separate article on children, modeled on the CRC, as children are a most vulnerable part of society, especially disabled children. Disabled adults make their own decisions with regard to their health, education and professional activities; children are restricted in making these kinds of decisions. States should ensure that regardless of any failure on the part of parents and caregivers to provide full care, children need to have adapted to life by the time they reach adulthood. So states should ensure children with disabilities have the necessary care, education and professional training.

Kenya strongly supported a separate article. If the rights of disabled children are not respected, then the rights they should enjoy in their adulthood, such as employment or inclusion in political life, will not be realized. Children are different from adults with their own unique situations, both legally and in other respects. Therefore, mainstreaming each article will not necessarily address the issues of children. Mainstreaming rights is necessary, but there should also be a separate article that deals with the issues that are unique to children. The right to participation should be included as this is often not addressed in the context of CRC, because states parties are not required to report on the inclusion of children with disabilities. State parties should be required to support families in the care of children with disabilities to ensure their capacities properly evolve.
A cross reference to CRC should also be included, so that children with disabilities avail of all the rights under that convention.

Argentina supported a separate article on children. The CRC should be referred to as a general framework by including, at the end of Para 1, for example; “in keeping with the provisions established in CRC.” The second para could be deleted, as it would be redundant. The wording of para 3 is confusing and Argentina has proposed alternative text: www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6arg.htm. Article 4 could be dispensed with.

Norway agrees with delegations that children and women with disabilities are not simply a subgroup, and this is reflected in their recognition in separate conventions. Their situation however is best dealt with through strong references in the preamble and under article 4 on general obligations, as proposed by the EU. This will ensure that the concerns of children with disabilities are applied systematically throughout the convention. A cross cutting review of children’s rights and situations should be ensured so that all the rights apply to children. Accordingly article 25 should require states to report on the situation of children with disabilities as well.

The Chair noted that the idea of including a reference under the monitoring section to children could also be applied to women and other PWD faced with multiple discriminations.

Yemen supported a separate article. However it should not be a duplication of Article 23 of the CRC. All the rights of disabled children should be stressed to enable them to emerge from childhood with the necessary skills for life.

EU noted with concern the approach of some delegations suggesting that issues dealt with either in the CRC or in other articles of this convention be added to Article 16, eg. the proposal from Israel, about expressing views freely on all matters affecting children with disability, has been drawn from Article 12. “If we take this approach, then why would we limit it to Article 12, and not to other Articles of the CRC which are also directly relevant, like Article 18 on the responsibility of parents towards children?” This approach replicates the relevant parts of the CRC into Article 16 in this convention. Another approach has been to include in Article 16 issues that are already addressed in provisions elsewhere in this convention, like family and home life, right to participation. These approaches compromise the clarity both of this convention and the CRC and should be replaced with a strong reference in a general obligation “up front” to apply the whole of the CRC to this convention. Norway’s suggestion about adding a reference under Article 25 on Monitoring is very interesting; it would be another way forward to ensure a horizontal application and would have the strength and authority across this convention. If there are issues that could not be covered either through a horizontal reference to the CRC or language from the general obligations, then the EU will work with the facilitator on this.

Canada reaffirmed its strong commitment to CRC and the promotion and protection to every child, and agreed with many delegations about the particular vulnerability of children with disabilities. Many disability organizations have expressed the view that Article 23 of CRC is not sufficient to fully address all the issues relating to children with disabilities. Confining the issues of disability to one article in that convention has had the effect of limiting attention and reporting on children with disabilities to that article. Canada therefore supports adding strong language to this convention. However Article 16 of the WG text repeats obligations that almost every state is already under and is not a useful addition. Limiting the focus on children to one article should be avoided.
Instead of Article 16, there should be strong, general provisions in Article 2, and/or Article 4, to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of human rights by all children with disabilities without discrimination. Such an initial position in the convention would help raise awareness and apply across the convention.
Issues specific to children with disabilities should be mainstreamed and addressed in detail where necessary in specific articles that address relevant subjects, eg Article 6, 12, 14(bis), 17, 21, 24. Canada would be open to a separate article if there are issues specific to children with disabilities that are not addressed elsewhere and would not be better addressed as more comprehensive existing articles. Such an article should not repeat provisions contained in other instruments.

Thailand supported retaining a separate article with the addition of text from the IDC of issues not addressed under CRC Article 23. It also supported the EU proposal on language in the General Obligations.

Philippines supported the inclusion of this article and agreed with the Holy See that the phrase “before and after birth” be included in Para 16.1 as the rights of the child start at conception. The terms “detection” and “identification” be inserted in Para 3(a) to read: “early detection, identification, and provision of appropriate comprehensive services.”

The Chair sought clarification from the Philippines of the context in which the language of “early detection” would apply. The Philippines clarified that it was referring to the early detection of the disability and subsequently of the services.

Costa Rica supported the Canadian position highlighting the need to go beyond CRC Article 23. Yemen’s intervention implied that only Article 23 applies to children with disability when in fact it is simply a reminder that the whole CRC applies to all children, including children with disabilities. To avoid the same mistake, there is a need to determine the scope of the CRC and note its gaps or omissions. The IDC text accomplishes this. There is no specific article that could assure the rights of children with disabilities either in this convention or in the future.

Morocco supported a separate article. As agreed upon at the Casablanca meeting of June 2005, it proposed adding a description of complete, appropriate and comprehensive services to Para 3(a) as this is key to early detection, intervention and prevention. There should also be mention of the prevention of sexual exploitation of children with disabilities.

Uganda supported a separate article. Disabled children are sometimes excluded from, for example, birth registration, access to the legal system and opportunities to express their views. Uganda supports the twin-track approach suggested by Canada; issues that cannot be mainstreamed should be placed in a stand-alone article, eg, child protection, respect for child’s evolving capacities, care for children within families.

South Africa supported the position of Kenya. There should be no limitation on the allocation of resources. There should be assistance provided to both the caregiver and to the child. The rights of children should be looked at in the context of non-discrimination legislation, but must be included in policy objectives and constitutional principles of state parties.


NGO Statements

International Disability Caucus
“Nothing about us, without us” is not being fulfilled for children with disabilities at this forum. There are no children or young people here able to advocate for themselves. Furthermore, there is no single international organization here dedicated to the rights of children with disabilities. It is imperative that the absence of children or a powerful lobby on their behalf does not lead to the neglect of their rights in this convention.
Two contradictory arguments have been made. On the one hand, that CRC already adequately addresses the rights of disabled children and therefore there is no need for additional provisions to strengthen those rights. On the other hand, that having a dedicated article in CRC has been counterproductive to the rights of disabled children.
It is true that in practice, States have restricted their focus in reporting to CRC to Article 23. Monitoring of reports to the committee reveals that the rights of disabled children are rarely addressed except in respect of education, rehabilitation and health. Yet if Article 23 had not existed, it is likely that there would have been even less attention given to children with disabilities. Its presence in the text of the CRC has resulted in the Committee on the Rights of the Child engaging in dialogue with states on a far wider range of rights issues than would have otherwise been the case. There is no doubt that children with disabilities have had a higher profile as a consequence of article 23. Yet the article is not sufficient as it stands. The emphasis in CRC provides for special services to promote the social integration of children with disabilities. An end to social exclusion and discrimination will only take place when governments take responsibility for providing inclusive mainstream services for all children, inclusive provision for play, inclusive early years services, inclusive, appropriate and accessible child protection services. The drafting of this convention provides a unique opportunity to address these issues. Failure to do so would be to deny for children the very commitment to inclusion and equality that the convention is seeking to achieve.
In the context of this convention, it is also important to acknowledge that children, with or without disabilities have a different status from adults. They do not have autonomy and are not recognized as having legal capacity. They are entitled to additional protections associated with their youth and vulnerability. These protections are not and cannot be fully addressed in the main body of a text that is primarily directed towards rights of adults with disabilities. There are issues specific to children that can only be addressed in an article specific to the rights of disabled children.
Children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to violations of their rights, they’re vulnerable to physical and sexual violence, they are less likely to be registered birth, they are often denied the right to family life, widely placed in institutions, denied their right to express their views and have them taken seriously, denied the opportunities to develop their optimum capacities, excluded from opportunities for play, and commonly excluded from opportunities to seek justice when they experience violence and abuse.
Although the rights embodied in CRC extend equally to children with disabilities, without strengthening the obligations to implement those rights for children with disabilities, they will continue to be disregarded, in the same way that the rights embodied in the international covenants are disregarded for adults with disabilities. Unless explicit recognition is given to this group, they will fall into a black hole between the two conventions - not adequately acknowledged in the CRC because of a failure to address measures needed to realize those rights, and not recognized here due to their childhood status. The strongest possible measures should be introduced to address their rights violations faced all over the world. The retention of a dedicated article in this text will emphasize their presence as rights holders in the same way it has in the CRC.
The current working group draft fails to fulfill these objectives. It largely replicates the text embodied in CRC Article 23. As such, it does little to strengthen the rights of disabled children. By contrast, the IDC amended text provides strengthened protections with an emphasis on inclusion and mainstreaming, and should be seriously considered as an alternate text. Some of its provisions could and should be incorporated into other articles, but some cannot as they apply exclusively to children.

Inclusion International, represented by a member from Panama, emphasized in a personal testimony the importance of parents and family life in supporting the development of children with disabilities. Unfortunately, many children have no parental support and need help.

World Blind Union explained the importance of allowing children with disabilities to develop their own skills and potential by allowing them to make their own mistakes. Everyone learns from making mistakes and finds their limitations. Often, children with disabilities are over protected not just by their parents but also by society. This denies children with disabilities the right to speak for themselves. Parents and teachers are not educated to give children with disabilities the opportunities to make these mistakes, to correct themselves and to make decisions. The only way to change attitudes towards children with disabilities is to recognize their own capacity. Their self-determination should be honored in accordance with age and maturity. Disabled children must be allowed to make their own lives through their own experiences. This can only be achieved through a strong reference to disabled children that does not regard them as a homogenous group.

World Federation of the Deaf supported the IDC intervention. Children with disabilities should have their own article and also be included in the preamble and other relevant articles. Deaf children in particular are often the targets of medical interventions and various forms of training, and they do not have the opportunity to just be children. It is important that children be around people who are skilful in sign language. Without access to communication skills, either on the part of the deaf child or the person with whom they are trying to communicate, their issues will not be heard. Articles 11, 12, 13, 19, 24, 25 would most benefit from integrating this issue.
Children with disabilities need peer support, additionally they also need to observe adults with similar disabilities, to learn how to interact with the world around them and to grow up and become productive members of society.

Children’s Fund added their voice, as a mainstream children’s organisation, in support of other NGOs. Children with disabilities are experiencing the most rapid life developmental stage and thus have particular needs and responsibilities. They have the greatest potential to go far given the rights of this convention.

British Council of Disabled People supported the IDC position. Disabled children are the most disenfranchised from this convention as well as from the CRC. A separate article must address the issues of equality of treatment so as to ensure that such an article would not be addressed to the exclusion of the other parts of the convention. Far too many disabled children continue to be forcibly institutionalized, or left to die. Those disabled children who have survived, who are witness to or are heard at these meetings, have been able to do so because of the efforts of their parents rather than that of the medical profession. There is a history of “disableism” around the world, which impacts on the lives of disabled children. A majority of their parents do not have experience of living with an impairment and find it difficult to adjust to the negativity that is still out there in society in everything we do – on television, in the cinema, in comic books and playgrounds, in the way that nondisabled peers react because they have not been taught any other way. That is why a stand-alone article is necessary, so that all who have responsibility for the lives of children take this responsibility seriously, and change their daily working practice.
Empowering young disabled people, as addressed in para 2 of the IDC text, is essential. This cannot be achieved by gathering them together to inquire into their views, the method of the current UK government called “focus groups.” This produces the answers one expects. Instead disabled children need to be educated to have a view, because their views have been ignored for so long. The best method is to expose children to disabled adults who have gone through the process of living with an impairment and living with disableism. It is also essential to educate the professionals who are the gatekeepers of the lives of children so that there is a “parity of esteem” for disabled children. There is a big agenda to be taken on, and there is a need for a stand-alone article that will infuse this agenda into every part of the convention.

Korean Solidarity for Disability Convention
suggested the addition of a sentence at the end of Para 2 to ensure that children with disabilities shall not be forcibly institutionalized. It also proposed language in a new paragraph 6 recognising that children with disabilities suffer from violence, abuse, detention, excessive rehabilitation training and violations of their rights, by caregivers and guardians. Such language would also obligate states to take appropriate preventative measures.

Society of Catholic Social Scientists supported the retention of Article 16 because children are doubly vulnerable. It commended Uganda for its position to protect children with disabilities from sterilization. It also commended the positions of Philippines and the Holy See to ensure that children with disabilities are not targeted before birth for discriminatory and life threatening treatment because of their disability.

Disabled Peoples International Latin America
supported a separate article. Disabled children in many developing countries have limited access to educational and health services, experience a great deal of family violence, sexual abuse, exploitation of labor, and are often reduced to beggary.
Language making states obligations contingent upon resources should be eliminated from paras 3 and 4. If society cannot protect its disabled children, then who can it protect? Disabled children should have access to healthcare, education and preparation for work. These should be grounded in government policy. Children in rural areas, from indigenous groups, are exposed to the greatest vulnerability and should be covered.
In developed countries institutionalization should be eliminated. But for families living in remote areas of developing countries like the rain forest or the Andes, their economic situation is such that children with disabilities will be abandoned or cannot survive, and institutionalization may be the only option for a better standard of living.

The Chair
noted a sizable proportion of the delegations and all disability organizations are in favor of a separate article. There seems to be general agreement that paras 2, 3 and 4 are not adequate, though the language of “early provision” of services, for example, does add value from CRC, as does paras 1 and 5. Additionally, particular situations where children with disabilities face a particular disadvantage have also been raised both by NGOs and States, and language reflecting this needs to be incorporated. As noted by Mexico however, such language needs to add value to existing texts.
The Chair clarified the concerns raised by several delegations with respect to the relationship between this convention and others that may, for example, deal with the rights of children. It should not be the objective of this meeting to duplicate obligations found elsewhere. States parties are already bound by the obligations of those other conventions, which stand on their own. However this does not prevent states at this meeting from increasing obligations already found in other conventions. There is no problem of inconsistency here. If a state is party to 2 conventions and one of them has a higher standard, then the state is obligated to uphold the higher standard. With respect to children, for any state party to the CRC that is also party to this convention, should this convention have a higher standard, that state is bound to observe the higher standard in this convention. This is stated in CRC Article 41. It is important to ensure however that obligations do not contradict each other. It is worth noting that most of the obligations found in other conventions already apply to PWD, yet PWD have not been able to realize these rights. So the task at hand is to understand the particular problems that, for example, children with disabilities face, and then address those issues specifically in this convention. This convention provides an opportunity to be more specific with respect to rights that are already covered in existing conventions, as in for example, the early provision of appropriate and comprehensive services, which builds in an additional ingredient. There is also the need to formulate general language, similar to what could be added to Article 4.
To address the underlying disagreement about the need for a separate article, the Chair requested the facilitator to proceed in the same fashion as that for women with disabilities, and to meet with interested delegations to identify gaps in the text where mainstreaming of issues related to children with disabilities is required. Following that the drafting a stand-alone provision, that is in fact value added, can be explored.

Article 17 - Education

The Chair introduced the Facilitator from Australia for this article. He called for comments on the WG text paragraph by paragraph while drawing attention to the many footnotes to this article.

Jamaica called for this article to deal with both education and training and this should be reflected in the title. Many disabled want to resume their education when they are beyond the age of their nondisabled peers. Education is the catalyst that will improve the lives of disabled people.

Australia put forward its proposed text www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6aus.htm which recognizes education as a whole from primary to lifelong learning, and is not age specific. The text has been structured towards inclusive education as an aspirational right. This document should not just be a mere human rights document but there are life skills that people with disabilities need to acquire to interact both with other similarly disabled persons and with the community as a whole. Braille, sign language and orientation and mobility skills are included. These skills may be acquired through a formal education system but also at any stage of life. Australia sees the need for Article 17 bis which recognises that these activities are fundamental but relevant more broadly than just in the context of education. The term “recognise the right of” should be replaced with “enable.”

South Africa was flexible with regard to the text used - that of the working group Australia. It subscribes to the principle of education for all. It emphasized several issues within the WG text: [1] The provision of education to children and young people must encompass development of skills and of individual potential to be a full member of society. [2] In order to provide education to a large scale there has to be a removal of all barriers including social, cultural and physical barriers. [3] Access to education has to be promoted and made affordable within reasonable means of state parties.

Kenya considered the WG text comprehensive and useful. In the chapeau of Para 1 the phrase “on an equal basis with others” should be added at the end of the first sentence; the reference to progressive realization removed from the second sentence and “and adults” should be inserted after “children”. Education for people with disabilities should be approached in the same way it is done for others.

The Chair enquired whether adding “and adults” would mean that the text then reverted to apply to “people with disabilities”. Kenya clarified that it would prefer to specify “children and adults” to emphasise applicability to both given the fact that other parts of the article seem to only apply to one or the other.

Thailand agreed with the WG text as the basis for discussion. [1] There should be a right to education on an equal basis with others. Such a right supersedes any particular model of education and any type of service delivery. This right should not be compromised. [2] All educational settings should be made inclusive to persons with disabilities, in line with the idea of inclusive education. Such inclusiveness does not mean only one model but that the whole educational system must be inclusive. [3] Freedom of choice applies to the concept of education as well and must be maintained. The right to choose is a solution to the problems that in reality disabled people must face when entering any particular educational system. Whether in the past, present and future, there will always be “the idea of the alternative”, to meet the needs of diverse groups of people. Therefore Thailand supports Para 3 of the working group text and Para 2 (d) of the IDC text. The idea of specialized training skills in para 4 of the WG text and 2(c) of the IDC text should also be maintained. (www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6thai.htm)

New Zealand supported the basic content of the working group draft, while also supporting improvements in the emphasis of the article, which are achieved through the Australian redraft and are included in a number of NGO proposals. The emphasis of the article should be on disabled children and adults’ ability to participate in the general education system complemented or enabled by adequate provision of support and/or special services. It should not be to present a choice for states between providing inclusive or segregated services. General education should be seen as incorporating a range of supports to meet the diverse needs of all students, rather than as two alternatives; special versus mainstream. It therefore supports the deletion of WG para 3 as in the Australian text, or its modification. It supports the new 17(bis) because it deals with issues covered in other parts of the convention that are not specifically about the right to education, like Articles 13, 24, and 21.

Jordan called for a greater emphasis on learning, because it implies the interactive aspect of education and the principle of self learning that is now becoming more important given distance learning possibilities in the internet age. There is also a need for teachers to be trained to teach persons with disabilities, particularly around areas such as assistive technology. It suggested the following structure for the WG text of this article. Para 1 should establish the right to education and training for all PWD. Para 2 should identify all the means and facilities to achieve the goal of education for all. Para 3 should be a safeguard for children who need special considerations.

Israel supported the WG text. It also supported the position of Kenya to broaden the article to include all learners regardless of age and enquired whether the reference to children in Paras 1(c) and 1(d) should be changed accordingly. There are lecturers, architects and other professionals who are involved in the education of disabled persons, they are not as well informed on disability issues, and they should also be referred to in 2(b). The obligation for inclusive education should apply to all institutions of learning, not just schools. Israel supports the IDC para 2(e), as disabled people and those who work with disabled people should be included in educational plans.

Costa Rica supported the Australian text which resembles a proposal from Costa Rica at AHC3. The scope of this article is the education of all disabled persons throughout their lives, not only formal or children’s education. Human rights education, on disability and human rights should be incorporated into study plans for all educational curricula.

The session was adjourned.

 

 


The Sixth Ad Hoc Committee Daily Summaries is a public service by RI*, a global network promoting the Rights, Inclusion and Rehabilitation of people with disabilities. RI extends its sincere gratitude to the Governments of Norway, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand for their generous support towards this project.

The Daily Summaries are translated into French by Handicap-International, into Spanish by the Inter American Institute on Disability and into Arabic by Landmine Survivors Network (www.musawa.org). Thanks to funding from the above mentioned governments RI will facilitate translation to Spanish and Chinese.

The daily summaries are available online at http://www.riglobal.org/un/index.html in MSWord; http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6summary.htm; www.worldenable.org/rights; and www.ishr.ch

Reporters for the 6 th Session are Roisin Dermody, Marianne Schulze, Tina Singleton, Robin Stephens; Editors are Laura Hershey and Zahabia Adamaly. Please forward any corrections or comments to Zahabia_a@hotmail.com.

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, 2005
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Division for Social Policy and Development