COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES HOLDS DAY OF GENERAL DISCUSSION ON EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today held a Day of General Discussion on equality and non-discrimination, article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with a view to preparing a General Comment on that article. The discussion was organized in three panels.

In the first interactive panel, moderated by Jonas Ruskus, Committee Expert and Chair of the Working Group on article 5, participants identified different forms of disability–based discrimination, discussed the personal scope of anti-discrimination law, and spoke of other discrimination grounds which could intersect with disability-based discrimination, such as gender, religion, race and sexual orientation. The panellists were: Anna Lawson, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds; Andrea Parra, Advocacy Director of a feminist human rights organization CREA; Umoh Ekaete Judith, Joint National Association of Persons with Disabilities, Nigeria; Yetnebersh Nigussie, disability and development non-governmental organization Light for the World; and Facundo Chavez, Disability Advisor, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Danlami Basharu, Committee Vice-Chair, chaired the panel on justiciability and enforcement of equality and non-discrimination in the context of disability, which explored the issue of equality and non-discrimination as a principle or a right, by discussing the necessary preconditions to achieve justiciability and enforcement and what could be learnt from law making and litigation. Participating in the discussion were Carlos Rios Espinosa, Senior Human Rights Researcher, Human Rights Watch; Virginia Bras-Gomes, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Dalile Antunez, Co-Director of the Civil Association for Equality and Justice.

The final panel, moderated by Laszlo Lovaszy, Committee Expert, focused on distinguishing reasonable accommodation, special measures and obligations under accessibility, and explored different concepts of reasonable accommodation, special measures and accessibility, and their legal character. Taking part in the discussion were Dalia Leinarte, Chairperson of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; Lisa Waddington, the European Disability Forum Chair in European Disability Law at Maastricht University; Eric Carlson, Senior Disability Specialist, International Labour Organization; Agustina Palacios, Coordinator, Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Mar del Plata, Argentina; Amita Dhanda, Professor of Law and Head of the Centre for Disability Studies, Nalsar University of Law, India; and Seree Nonthasoot, Representative of Thailand in the Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Speaking in the interactive discussion were the European Network of Equality Bodies, Insieme Switzerland, and Equal Rights Trust. Serbia also spoke, as well as several representatives of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and a representative of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

María Soledad Cisternas Reyes of Chile, Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Disability and Accessibility, spoke in a video statement.

Concluding comments and closing remarks were provided by Silvia Quan, International Disability Alliance; Coomara Pyandeanee, Committee Vice-Chairperson; Jonas Ruskus, Committee Expert and the Chair of the Working Group on article 5; and Theresia Degener, Committee Chairperson.

The Committee’s public meetings in English and Spanish, with closed captioning and International Sign Language, are webcast at http://webtv.un.org/

The Committee will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 August, to adopt its draft General Comment on living independently and being included in the community (article 19).

Opening Statements

GIANNI MAGAZZENI, Officer-in-Charge, Human Rights Council and Treaties Mechanisms Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in his welcoming remarks, said that this event would provide clarity on the compliance of domestic laws and policies with the principles of the Convention, particularly in terms of equality and non-discrimination. Article 5 had not created new rights as those principles were included in all core United Nations treaties and all people, without distinction, were entitled to enjoy all human rights and the protection from discrimination on all grounds, including disability. Still, persons with disabilities continued to face a disproportionately high level of discrimination in all fields of life, including access to birth registration, education, justice, employment, and to services on an equal footing with others. Constant obstacles in accessing the environment, services and information prevented persons with disabilities from carrying on their daily activities such as live in their homes, move around, seek employment, etc. Additionally, attitudinal barriers hindered the full and effective participation in society of persons with disabilities, particularly women and children with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities. More must be done to ensure the equal rights and participation of all, and to implement the Convention.

Leaving no one behind was at the core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, said Mr. Magazzeni, stressing that fighting discrimination and working for equality of all was at the heart of the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The activities undertaken to implement this part of the mandate included the publishing of the annual study on equality and non-discrimination of persons with disabilities in 2016; and a joint project with the European Union called “Bridging the Gap” on the development of indicators for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, which aimed to provide guidance and tools to strengthen the implementation and monitoring of the Convention and promote the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Thus, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was committed to make international human rights laws and standards a reality and would continue to raise awareness and recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities and work with partners to promote an enabling environment for a life free of discrimination.

ULRICH SEIDENBERGER, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in his opening remarks, said that the work of the Committee was crucial in raising awareness about the social structures which perpetuated obstacles to equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. The dialogue today was an important step towards the clarification of legal obligations that article 5 entailed. Progress had been made in many countries to overcome discrimination practices and provide more equal opportunities for persons with disabilities, including in Germany, which had adopted new legislation in July 2016 to improve the act on equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. Mr. Seidenberger then mentioned some of the steps that Germany had taken to implement its obligations under the Convention, which included adapting the concept of disability to the Convention, improving accessibility in the federal administration, wider use of plain language, recognizing the refusal of reasonable accommodation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, setting up of a complaint and arbitration mechanism, and the creation of a legal foundation for the promotion of representative organizations of persons with disabilities.

KAGWIRA MBOGORI, Chair of the Kenyan National Commission for Human Rights, said that the inclusion of persons with disabilities was very much a developmental as well as a human rights issue. The 2030 Agenda was a clarion call for the inclusion of persons with disabilities and was an important improvement on the Millennium Development Goals, which had made no mention of persons with disabilities at all. Over one billion people experienced some form of disability, forming the world’s largest and most discriminated against minority that experienced barriers to full participation in the society, resulting in poverty, lack of employment and poorer health. In Kenya, the Commission had undertaken a study on the situation of persons with disabilities titled “From Norms to Practice” which documented the situation of persons with disabilities and made recommendations for the fulfilment of the provisions of the Convention.

Discrimination against persons with disabilities was rampant, and manifested itself in the many forms of barriers, which were the result of the failure of national policies and laws. Kenya had committed to specifically define and include the principle of reasonable accommodation and to build the capacity of the judiciary to adjudicate disability-related discrimination cases, but more needed to be done to regulate legal capacity in line with the Convention, and in general to do more to ensure full and equal inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities in the society. A moral test of any Government or society was how that society treated those at the dawn of life – children, sunset of life – elderly and those in the shadow of life – persons with disabilities.

IKPONWOSA (“I.K.”) ERO, Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights of persons with albinism, in a written statement which was read out on her behalf, stressed that discrimination and stigmatization of persons with albinism were the key obstacles to the realization of their human rights. They also suffered various intersecting and multiple forms of discrimination. The discussion today was an opportunity to add the intersecting discrimination suffered by persons with albinism and thus it was essential to recognize that persons with albinism faced different discrimination on the basis of colour in the forms of harmful traditional practices, violence and physical attacks motivated by witchcraft. This was a manifestation of racial discrimination intersecting on discrimination on the grounds of disability. The Convention took a new approach to equality and non-discrimination and laid out a powerful vision of substantive equality, which called for, inter alia, the elimination of structural causes of human rights violations and addressing root causes of discrimination. In that sense, the Convention required a substantive transformational agenda to be adopted by the States.

In her statement, the Independent Expert also stressed the need to address discrimination and violence against women and children with albinism, and mothers of children with albinism who were often blamed for “causing” albinism in their children. Children with albinism faced a very high rate of infanticide or abandonment, and in the absence of reliable birth registration mechanisms, such crimes often went unnoticed and unreported. In addition, myths linked to the innocence of children and the power of their bodies, made them a preferred target of witchcraft. In closing, the Independent Expert reiterated the transformative scope of the Convention to achieve equality, the intersectionality of disability and colour faced by persons with disabilities, and the importance of eliminating root causes of violence and discrimination against them, and urged the Committee to recognize the particular vulnerabilities of persons with disabilities in the General Comment on article 5.

THERESIA DEGENER, Committee Chairperson, said the Committee had decided to develop a General Comment on article 5 as it had noticed, through its dialogues with States, a confusion and differing understanding of the principle of reasonable accommodation. Therefore it was important to explore unresolved legal issues, analyse main causes of discrimination, identify best practices and learn about various forms of discrimination in different walks of life. The Chair thanked all those who had made written submissions, and said that the Committee was fortunate to have eminent experts from all over the world participate in the discussion today, as well as the representatives of human rights treaty bodies whose jurisprudence was crucial in advancing equality and non-discrimination.

Interactive Panel on Disability–Based Discrimination and Intersectionality

JONAS RUSKUS, Committee Expert and Chair of the Working Group on article 5, in his introductory remarks, said that the purpose of this panel was to identify different forms of disability–based discrimination, and also identify the personal scope of anti-discrimination law, and other discrimination grounds which could intersect with disability-based discrimination, such as gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.

ANNA LAWSON, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds, in her presentation, focused on the personal scope of disability discrimination laws and who had the right to sue for disability discrimination. When the disability laws got the personal scope wrong, what happened was that the focus was on the persons with disabilities; often persons with disabilities had to prove that their impairment hindered their participation in the society and in day to day activities; and they were often too narrow and excluded people from bringing discrimination claims, for example people whose disability was intermittent, such as mental health disability or epilepsy. The General Comment should stress that the definition of disability must not be too simple, too narrow or too judgemental. It should also stress that disability discrimination claims should be opened to people without disability but were discriminated against because of perceived disability or because of being associated with someone who had a disability.

ANDREA PARRA, Advocacy Director of a feminist human rights organization CREA, addressed in her presentation the need to include in the General Comment the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity-based discrimination and how it intersected with disability. Sterilization of persons with disabilities was still seen as a way to address sexual violence of persons with disabilities, while forced sterilization of women and girls with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, was often not seen as a form of gender-based violence, as was the case in Colombia or in Kenya. It was virtually impossible for a person with disabilities who was institutionalized to report sexual violence and it was an imperative for States to find the ways to identify and redress sexual violence in institutions. Segregation in education meant that, in many countries, children with disabilities did not receive sexual and reproductive health education, which was yet another form of discrimination.

UMOH EKAETE JUDITH, Joint National Association of Persons with Disabilities of Nigeria, stressed that attitudes and treatment of persons with disabilities were neither homogenous nor static, and recalled that negative stereotypes were not only discriminatory themselves but perpetuated exclusion and discrimination. In African culture, persons with disabilities were often seen as hapless and helpless and disability was often associated with evil, seen to be a result of witchcraft, and was considered a shame on the family. This meant that children with disabilities were abandoned, excluded, and received less food, less education, and less health care. A magic of the Convention was that it recognized that discrimination did not have to be intentional to be unlawful, and it imposed a positive responsibility on society and States not to discriminate. It was possible to suffer disability-based discrimination because of association with someone with a disability, or for supporting disability rights, and intersectional discrimination must be adequately recognized and addressed.

YETNEBERSH NIGUSSIE, Light for the World, in her intervention addressed disability-based discrimination by association, and the exclusion from protection from discrimination on the grounds of disability for the many associated with a person with disabilities – parents, siblings, colleagues and others. In Africa, disability was still seen as a curse, and in many countries, once a child with disabilities was born, marriages ended; in a recent case in Burkina Faso, a woman who was suing her husband for abandonment was told by the court that she was not covered by the Convention. Parents and carers of children with disabilities were prohibited from sharing water points and other community services, social gatherings, and daily interaction with the community. Some countries were arguing that the Convention should only address disability-based discrimination, and not discrimination by association; at the same time, there were positive examples of the protection against discrimination by association, for example the draft African Union protocol on persons with disabilities which explicitly mentioned discrimination by association.

FACUNDO CHAVEZ, Disability Advisor, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, spoke about the annual study of equality and non-discrimination of persons with disabilities published in 2016 and said that the Office considered that there was an under-developed area in the Convention under article 8 concerning combatting stereotypes. Its further elaboration could contribute to the interpretation of equality and non-discrimination and help to provide guidance to States on addressing discrimination against some narrowly defined populations. The General Comment should stress the specific links between equality and non-discrimination with the right to work and education, and the right to live independently. It should further explore affirmative actions to better guide States in the implementation of anti-discrimination provisions, and provide expanded guidance on the provision of reasonable accommodation, including its denial, which was the most challenging provision of the Convention for States parties. In implementing reasonable accommodation, the States were not only fulfilling their non-discrimination mandate but were also learning from their experiences.

Interactive Panel on Justiciability and Enforcement of Equality and Non-Discrimination in the Context of Disability

DANLAMI BASHARU, Committee Vice-Chairperson, introducing the panel, said that its purpose was to explore the issue of equality and non-discrimination as a principle or a right. In this, it would discuss what were the necessary preconditions to achieve justiciability and enforcement, and what could be learnt from law making and litigation.

CARLOS RIOS ESPINOSA, Senior Human Rights Researcher, Human Rights Watch, said that equality and non-discrimination should be considered both as a principle and as a right, and focused on the normative content of the right to equality and non-discrimination. It was imperative to emphasize the multi-dimensional aspect of discrimination in the General Comment, and to stress the need to read article 5 in conjunction with article 2 which explained what discrimination meant and included discrimination by association and discrimination on the basis of perceived discrimination. In some countries such as Ghana and India, discrimination by association reached even professionals working with persons with disabilities, and in Nepal for example, inclusive education teachers were seen as less worthy and often abused. The obligation to implementation of reasonable accommodation was a cross-cutting one in the Convention, and the test of “reasonable” must put the burden to comply on the entity. In situations in risk, lack of inclusion of persons with disabilities in preparedness and planning resulted in discrimination against persons with disabilities. In camp sites in South Sudan, accessible sanitation facilities either did not exist or were insufficient or maladapted.

VIRGINIA BRAS-GOMES, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stressed the difficulty of identifying indirect discrimination and raised concern about multiple and intersecting, and structural or institutional discrimination. She noted the key challenges to eliminating discrimination in the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including the extent to which States had translated a comprehensive legal framework into national legislation and regulations and how far those entered policy making and complaint mechanisms. The full realization of the rights of persons with disabilities required integrated measures from many departments, but this was challenging as budgets were often sector-based, and a comprehensive and holistic policy was not in place. Another challenge was the lack of disability-desegregated data: what could not be measured could not be seen, and consequently could not be dealt with. Two recurrent dimensions of the struggle of any discriminated groups were lack of representation of its members in decision-making processes, and multiple discrimination faced by women from that group, pushing them to the bottom of the society. Some States held the views that protective equality – special classes, sheltered workshops – held precedence over substantive equality, which was contrary to the position of the Committee which advocated for open and inclusive participation in the society and the provision of reasonable accommodation.

DALILE ANTUNEZ, Co-Director, Civil Association for Equality and Justice, said that in many countries, litigation had been an important tool in the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities; yet many countries still held limited views of the potential and the role of the judiciary in ensuring equality and non-discrimination. The General Comment should stress that the judiciary had an important role to play in implementing the right to equality and in providing redress and reparation for violations of the right to equality. It should also stress the justiciability of States’ failure to control disability-based discrimination by the private sector. For the rights to be upheld, there must be a possibility to bring collective cases. Other key aspects related to equality and non-discrimination included the training of the judiciary and legal profession on disability, removal of barriers for persons with disabilities to access free legal aid, the provision of adequate budgetary resources using a human rights-based approach and ensuring that the rights of persons with disabilities were mainstreamed, and the availability of adequate data and information to enable the understanding of the discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Interactive Panel on Distinguishing Reasonable Accommodation, Special Measures and Obligations under Accessibility

LASZLO LOVASZY, Committee Expert, introducing the discussion, said that the panel aimed to discuss the different concepts of reasonable accommodation, special measures and obligations under accessibility, by exploring the specific questions of their legal character and the legal obligations they triggered.

DALIA LEINARTE, Chairperson of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, said that women with disabilities were included as a vulnerable group of women in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. In 1991, the Committee had adopted General Recommendation N°18 on women with disabilities in which it recommended that States parties provide information on the actions taken, including special measures, to eliminate discrimination against women with disabilities. The Committee had adopted this year a General Recommendation on gender-based violence which applied also to women and girls with disabilities, including in the context of the family, marriage and access to health. Several issues featured strongly in the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, including violence against women, and health rights of women, including their sexual and reproductive health and rights and their autonomy in this regard.

LISA WADDINGTON, European Disability Forum Chair in European Disability Law, Maastricht University, said that a key question in classifying the denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination was whether to classify it as direct or indirect discrimination. In defining the denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of direct discrimination, there were problems: one was the use of a comparator in the determination of direct discrimination, and another was the cost of the reasonable accommodation. There were also problems in defining the denial of reasonable accommodation as indirect discrimination, chiefly as indirect discrimination was assessed in the form of groups, for example people in wheelchairs, which was then difficult to apply in the individual case. In conclusion, the denial of reasonable accommodation could be defined as both direct and indirect discrimination, and in either case it needed to be defined as a special non-typical form of discrimination, and the legislation must develop a definition of reasonable accommodation and its limits. Alternatively, the denial of reasonable accommodation could be treated as a third and separate form of discrimination, which would help to highlight awareness of the issues involved and would avoid the confusion that existed in the context of both direct and indirect forms of discrimination.

ERIC CARLSON, Senior Disability Specialist, International Labour Organization, drew attention to the new guide on promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace, which the International Labour Organization had published in 2016. The guide mentioned four categories of workers who required reasonable accommodation: workers with disabilities, workers living with HIV/AIDS, pregnant workers and those with particular religious beliefs. Reasonable accommodation must be fully reflected in national legislation and the workplace policy, and concrete practical guidance must be provided. It was important to stress that most reasonable accommodation could be provided at little or no cost, and it was possible to build on the experience of employers in providing reasonable accommodation to one category of workers to providing reasonable accommodation to other categories of workers. The International Labour Organization Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention (No. 159) contained measures to achieve equality of opportunity and treatment.

AGUSTINA PALACIOS, Coordinator, Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Mar del Plata, Argentina, noted that it was possible to define different dimensions of accessibility; accessibility as a principle was always implicit in the principle of equality, and it must be the guiding principle of public policies. Each right had a certain number of features that defined it which were necessary to ensure that the rights were recognizable; thus, accessibility was a necessary requirement of all disability rights. At the same time, accessibility was an autonomous right and it was important for the General Comment to present accessibility as a right and to call upon States to define this right. With regard to differences in measures of accessibility, the General Comment should refer to the distinction between accessibility and reasonable accommodation, and note that the function of reasonable accommodation was not to replace the non-compliance with accessibility. The General Comment should also highlight the distinction between accessibility and accommodation in specific areas, which in fact represented affirmative action. For example, an elevator fitted with an access ramp did not represent reasonable accommodation, but a measure to ensure access to persons with disabilities.

AMITA DHANDA, Professor of Law, Head of the Centre for Disability Studies, Nalsar University of Law, India, looked at the issue of reasonable accommodation from the standpoint of a person with disabilities, and said that reasonable accommodation represented a move from normative to substantive equality, and was the principle which aimed to ensure equality of outcome for persons with disabilities. In the jurisprudence before the Convention, accommodation was considered reasonable if it was not too expensive. Key human rights instruments had been constructed in monolithic terms and did not permit the kind of diversity which subsisted in humans, and the idea of including this diversity only came ex post facto. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities did not try to “fix” persons with disabilities, which was not a “sensational” approach as it saw disability as a part of disability, which changed the paradigm in which the whole issue of disability was addressed. The Committee should ensure that the General Comment understood reasonable accommodation as guided by the spirit of the Convention, that it represented the acknowledgment of the diversity of disability and a recognition of evolving capacity, and that it should be about opportunity and participation. There were two parties in the reasonable accommodation – the providers and the recipients and it was important to assess the reasonableness from the point of view of persons with disabilities, and not from the standpoint of providers.

SEREE NONTHASOOT, Representative of Thailand to the Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), spoke of a judicial decision 15/2012 concerning the constitutionality of the administrative regulation on judicial appointment, which excluded persons not fit of body and mind to serve as judges; it represented the first time that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had been cited by a Thai court. It had been hailed a victory for the applicant who had been disqualified on the grounds of his disability. In discussing accessibility, the most pertinent issue in Thailand was reasonable accommodation and which reasonable accommodation must be provided and how. The Committee should include in the language of the General Comment the questions of intersectionality and complementarity of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights.

Discussion

European Network of Equality Bodies said that equality bodies had a specific role to play in the implementation in practice of article 5, and asked about good practices on strengthening the institutions involved in the implementation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Insieme Switzerland said that persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities remained the most excluded and disadvantaged around the world, and most likely to have their legal capacity limited, which prevented their access to justice. Equal Rights Trust said that the framework presented in the General Comment ought to be that of equality and reiterate that the right to equality entailed the right to equal participation in all areas of life.

Serbia suggested that the Committee include the interrelation of article 5 and article 29 on the participation in public life in the General Comment and also to consider this relation it its future work.

A number of Committee Experts also took the floor in the discussion and raised the issues of the situation of women and girls with disabilities in institutions, particularly those with intellectual or psychosocial disability; the definition of disability in the discrimination context; and the use of terminology.

Statement by the Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Disability and Accessibility

MARÍA SOLEDAD CISTERNAS REYES, United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Disability and Accessibility, in a video statement, said that the Convention represented the elaboration of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and that article 5 was its pillar. This article led to different definitions of the concept of equality, for example equality before the law and equal protection by the law. Reasonable accommodation was a way to reach equality for persons with disabilities both in terms of equality of opportunities and equality of results. The violation of the right to equality due to the lack of accessibility represented structural discrimination and ill-treatment and was therefore justiciable. The international community had high expectations of the General Comment on equality and non-discrimination, especially in connection with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, for example on inclusive education, access to decent work, equal pay, accessible cities and human settlements.

Concluding Comments and Closing Remarks

SILVIA QUAN, International Disability Alliance, stressed that in recent years, international law had moved its focus from equality of treatment to equality of outcome. Also, the notion of transformative equality had been gaining ground; different from substantive equality, it aimed to engender structural and systematic change for the benefit of persons with disabilities. The Committee should stress in the General Comment that normative and substantive equality still had an important role to play in the realization of equality and non-discrimination. It should further explicitly include multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, denial of procedural accommodation, and disability-based violence. Regarding reasonable accommodation and its denial as a form of disability-related discrimination, the Committee should make absolutely clear that reasonable accommodation, which entailed an individual approach, was a matter for an immediate and not progressive application.

COOMARA PYANDEANEE, Committee Vice-Chairperson, summarizing the discussion, said that the starting point was that equality and non-discrimination were a goal and a friend, and a main pillar of the Convention in which there could be no compromise. Any General Comment should not target a specific group but be broad-based so that the jurisprudence could further advance. The General Comment should urge States to remove all the laws that were discriminatory and non-compliant with the Convention; urge the legislators to restore legal capacity in line with article 1 of the Convention; and address the issue of access to justice by clarifying for the judges what procedural accommodation was.

JONAS RUSKUS, Committee Expert and the Chair of the Working Group on article 5, in his concluding remarks thanked all participants and stakeholders for their support, interventions and submissions. The first draft of the General Comment would be posted on the Committee’s website by end of next week.

THERESIA DEGENER, Committee Chairperson, thanked the interpreters and sign language interpreters and regretted that easy-to-read was not as yet available.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CRPD17/020E