Reports from RI on the 5th UN Ad Hoc Meetings on Disability Convention

Part one of the report to RI on the UN Fifth Ad Hoc Committee Session, 24th January to 4th February 2005

By Tomas Lagerwall, RI Secretary General

The 5th Ad Hoc meeting on a convention on the rights of people with disabilities was concluded February 4, 2005.

The International Disability Caucus (IDC), composed of more than 50 international NGOs, played a very important role in discussions with governments and managed to have its voice heard on several important issues. Handicap International served as a secretariat for the IDC and Simonetta Capobianco, as an RI intern, supported the work between NGOs, the United Nations secretariat and governments.

RI's Vice President for the Africa Region Gidion Mandesi of Tanzania wrote a report summarizing the first and second week of the meeting. Please find attached the report from the second week of the meeting (the report from the first week of the meeting was emailed to members on February 3). In addition, both reports will be posted on RI's website at http://www.riglobal.org/un/index.html.

RI held an open lunch meeting for RI members and people in RI's network attending the Ad Hoc meeting on February 2 and had about 55 participants. In addition to the Ad Hoc meeting, RI strategy for 2004 - 2008 was presented and discussed. A similar meeting will be held on August 10, during the 6 th Ad Hoc meeting, which is scheduled for August 1-12, 2005. In addition, during the next Ad Hoc meeting, articles where RI has a high interest such as the Right to Education, Accessibility, Health Care, Habilitation and Rehabilitation and Work will most likely be discussed.

Similarly to previous Ad Hoc meetings, organizations have approached RI requesting information on how to become of RI.

The chair of the Ad Hoc meeting until now - Ambassador Luis Gallegos of Ecuador made public at the end of the last day that he would be resigning as chair as he is moving to Australia to become the ambassador of Ecuador to Australia. As there have been some rumors within the disability community around the reason for his moving, I would underline that diplomats are subject to move around the world. It is however no secret that Ambassador Gallegos would have liked to remain the chair of bureau and possibly also stay in New York.

Discussions have started among governments and NGOs about the composition of the new bureau and particularly who will become the new chair. Many people have spoken in favor of Ambassador Don MacKay of New Zealand, who has been very clever in leading some of the negotiations at the 5 th Ad Hoc meeting. The group Western European Countries and Others (WEOG), which is currently being represented by Sweden and includes the 25 EU countries plus Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and USA, supports Ambassador MacKay. Several people in Latin America would like the chair to continue to be from the Latin American region - GRULAC, in UN language. Negotiations will continue until the next ad Hoc meeting.

Several other meetings were held in connection with the two-week Ad Hoc meeting:

• IDA - the International Disability Alliance - held a meeting on January 29 in New York. Michael Fox, Gidion Mandesi and Tomas Lagerwall attended the meeting from RI. At the meeting it was decided that Tina Minkowitz from the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) will be the chair of IDA from June 2005 to May 2006 and Gidion Mandesi from RI will be the chair from June 2006 to May 2007. In addition, IDA had a meeting with Under-Secretary-General Ocampo about the convention and access issues related to the UN headquarters in New York.
  
• The Flagship on the Right to Education Towards Inclusion held an informal meeting on February 5. The meeting underlined the need for the Flagship, UN agencies and governments to ensure that children with disabilities all over the world including in developing countries get the same opportunities as other children to go to school, which is not the case today.
  
• UN agencies with an interest in the disability field held a meeting on February 7 with the aim to inform each other of ongoing activities and upcoming meetings. Tina Minkowitz from WNUSP and Tomas Lagerwall from RI attended the meeting representing IDA.

Finally I would like to mention that RI managed to provide daily summaries from the Ad Hoc meeting with support from the Henry H. Kessler Foundation, the New Zealand government and the United Nations. The summaries are a detailed compilation of the negotiations. The summaries will be posted on RI's website www.riglobal.org under UN Convention.

Part two of the report to RI on the UN Fifth Ad Hoc Committee Session, 24th January to 4th February 2005

By Gidion K. Mandesi

As you can remember in the first part of the report to RI about progress of drafting process and negotiations of the UN Comprehensive and Integral Convention on the protection and promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, I reported article 7 sub articles 5 to article 9 of it. In this second part, article 10 to 15 is covered.

With regard to article 10 about liberty and security of the person, many government delegations have been agreed upon that there shall not be deprivation of liberty of a person with disability on the ground of his or her disability. In other words in no case shall the existence of a disability justify a deprivation of liberty. Emphasis added. Basically, paragraph 1 of article 10 has been accepted with the following wording:

1. States parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities
   1. Enjoy the right to liberty and security of the person, without discrimination based on disability on an equal basis with others
   2. Are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, and that any deprivation of liberty shall be in conformity with the law, and in no case shall be based solely/exclusively on disability the existence of a disability justify a deprivation of liberty

It was further accepted, inter alia, that elements of dignity and worth, adequate accessible information, legal rights, fair hearing include the right to be heard, seek review on an equal basis with others, as well as compensation to be provided for individual in the case of deprivation of his/her liberty should be enshrined in paragraph 2 of article 10. After long discussion, the majority of government delegations have accepted the following wording to paragraph 2 of article 10.

2. States Parties shall ensure that if persons with disabilities are deprived of their liberty, they have at least the following guarantees:
   1. To be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity and worth of the human person, and in a manner that respects their human rights, conforms with the objectives and principles of this Convention, and reasonably accommodates their disability.
   2. To be provided (promptly) with adequate accessible information as to their legal rights and the reasons for the deprivation of their liberty;
   3. To be provided with prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance to;
      1. Challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of their liberty and a fair hearing, including the right to be heard) before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority in which case, they shall be provided with a prompt decision on any such action;
      2. Seek review on an equal basis with others of the deprivation of their liberty, including periodic review as appropriate;
   4. To be provided with compensation in the case of deprivation of liberty contrary to this convention
3. Any person with disability who has been the victim of unlawful deprivation on liberty shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

All in all, it is clearly settled that deprivation of one's liberty on the basis of disability is strictly prohibited.

With due regard to article 11 on freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; many government delegations have agreed upon that no person with disabilities shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It was further accepted that forced intervention and forced institutionalization must be forbidden. In addition, it was agreed that state parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial, educational or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Issues of free and informed consent, medical scientific or other form of experimentation be included in a separate article from article 11.

Article 12 addresses freedom from violence and abuse. The majority of government delegations have fully discussed the importance of this article for legal protection of persons with disabilities against violence and abuse. Principally, it has been accepted that state parties recognize that persons with disabilities are at greater risk, both within and outside the home, of violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual exploitation and abuse. States Parties shall, therefore, take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational and other measures to protect persons with disabilities, both within and outside the home, from all forms of violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual exploitation and abuse. Many government delegations and the International Disability Caucus have strongly rejected the use of forced interventions or forced institutionalization aimed at correcting, improving, or alleviating any actual or perceived impairment. Thus, it is accepted the principle that forced institutionalization of persons with disabilities on the basis of disability is illegal.

Furthermore, it was emphasized that state Parties shall ensure in any case of involuntary treatment of persons with disabilities that:

1. It is undertaken in accordance with the procedures established by law and with the application of appropriate legal safeguards.
2. The law shall provide that the interventions are in the least restrictive settings possible and the best interests of the person concerned will be fully taken into account.
3. Forced interventions are appropriate for the person and provided without financial cost to the individual receiving the treatment or to his or her family emphasis on this aspect was given by New Zealand.

Concerning article 13 on freedom of expression and opinion and access to information, both public information and information made or produced by private entities were accepted to be incorporated in that article to ensure broader range of accessing information by persons with disability. Sign language and Braille have been accepted as key aspects to ensure effective communication for people with hearing and visual impairments. The majority of state delegation have been agreed upon that state parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression and opinion including the freedom to seek, received and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through sign language, and Braille and augmentative alternative communication and all other accessible means, modes and formats of communication of their choice, including:

• Providing official public information to persons with disabilities, in a timely manner and without additional coast and in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities.
• Urging private entities that provide services to the general public to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for persons with disabilities.

The role of mass media in disseminating information to persons with disabilities has been discussed and the majority of government delegations have accepted the inclusion of mass media in article 13.

In addition, Disability International Caucus has insisted freedom of expression and opinion should be incorporated in that article. No objection indicated from the government delegations.

Article 14 address respect for privacy, the home and the family. Many country delegations have been accepted to separate this article into two separate articles. One should cover respect for privacy and another respect for home, the family and intimate relations. Issues relating to sexuality and sexual orientation were not favoured by Arabic, Latin and African countries. Hence, there was no consensus to include these issues into article 14. Further forced sterilization was raised during the discussion and many government delegations have accepted the retaining of fertility of persons with disabilities. Hence, forced sterilization is strictly prohibited. In addition, the best interest of the child has been received much support by many delegations in this article. International Disability Caucus contributions to this article 14 were greatly valued. They emphasized that caregivers should not be allowed to control personal assistance of persons with disability. Furthermore IDC also proposed language on adult person with disability who live with family members. Also it highlighted the issue of preferential treatment of non-disabled parents in custody disputes following divorce.

Regarding Article 15 on living independently and being included in the Community. This article was briefly discussed in the last day of the Fifth Ad Hoc Committee session. It was emphasized that persons with disabilities have equal choices to others in the community. It was indicated by some government delegation that lack of economic resources would limit the ability to fulfill some of the commitments for certain countries. In addition International Disability Caucus and other NGOs spoke of the need to safeguard choices for person with disability particularly in relation to living in communities. Emphasis added.

Closing Speech of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, Ambassador Luis Galegos (Ecuador)

On 4 th February 2005, the last day of the Fifth Ad Hoc Committee on Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee in his speech gave sincere thanks to all stakeholders for their participation in that important historical work regarding drafting process and negotiations of the UN Convention on disability rights. He further informed that his country Ecuador has appointed him to be Ambassador in Sydney Australia with new duties and responsibilities. He therefore indicated that he his willing to continue to be a chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee but he will be away from New York and his time will be limited. Considering this factor, he has decided to resign. Due to his designation, at the Sixth Ad Hoc Meeting scheduled in 1 st to 12 th August 2005, there will be elections of the new officers to save in the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee. Both government delegations and International Disability Caucus appreciated the good work have so far been done by Ambassador Luis Galegos has the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee. They wished him good luck and greater success in his new tasks as Ambassador of Ecuador in Australia.

 printer-friendly format