Back to: Guide to Ad Hoc Committee Documents

Access to Justice

Information Sheet

Article 10: Liberty and Security of the Person

Prepared by the International Disability Caucus Why should words like “solely” or “exclusively” be kept out of article 10.1(b)?

Deprivation of liberty should never be based on disability, any more than it should be based on race or gender. Imagine a convention that said deprivation of liberty shall in no case be based solely on race. Would it not suggest that race is a permissible basis for official detention? Similarly, to say that deprivation of liberty shall in no case be based solely on disability implies that disability can be one factor among others in the deprivation of liberty.

Many laws allowing compulsory institutionalization of people with disabilities require other factors to be considered along with disability – the effect is that we are unequally burdened compared with non-disabled people.

The ICCPR guarantees human rights to all people without distinction of any kind, now understood to include distinctions based on disability. The ICCPR also guarantees freedom of movement and freedom from arbitrary detention, but people with disabilities do not enjoy these rights equally under current laws and practices.

How does article 10.2(c)(i) undermine international law?

The article 10.2(c)(i), as currently formulated sets a lower standard for challenging the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty of persons with disabilities than the standard established under article 9 of the ICCPR. Under the ICCPR, a person must have access to a court of law – not any other kind of tribunal – to determine whether the detention is lawful.