HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS SPECIAL EVENT ON CONVENTION ON RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a special event on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which will be opened for signature in New York on Friday, 30 March, and then heard presentations of the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, and on torture.

At the beginning of the meeting, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, the President of the Council, said that the Council had in closed meetings examined the human rights situation in Iran and Uzbekistan under Economic and Social Council resolutions 1503 (XL VIII) and 2000/3 and in accordance with decisions 1/105 and 1/102 adopted by the Human Rights Council on 30 June 2006. The Human Rights Council had decided to discontinue the human rights situation in Iran and Uzbekistan.

Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, opening the special event on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said this was an appropriate moment to reconsider respective roles in promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, one of the most marginalized groups of individuals in all societies. That 10 percent of the world’s population lived with a disability added urgency. It had become apparent that existing human rights mechanisms did not consider the rights of persons with disabilities and that persons with disabilities had underused the standing mechanisms. The new Convention aimed to fill a protection gap, and the Optional Protocol to establish periodic reporting functions. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would service the new treaty body and work towards establishing partnerships, providing leadership and engaging with States.

Also introducing the debate, Don MacKay, Permanent Representative of New Zealand and Chair of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said the Convention elaborated the rights of persons with disabilities under international law, and set out a code of application for Governments. It marked a paradigm shift from thinking about disability as a social welfare matter to dealing with it as a human rights issue, which acknowledged that societal barriers and prejudices were themselves disabling.

Sheikha Hissa al-Thani, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Disability, said that the issues of persons with disabilities belonged to both agendas – the social development agenda and the human rights agenda. Both the Standard Rules and the Convention were essential to achieving the human rights for persons with disabilities.

Monthian Buntan, President of the Thailand Association of the Blind, said that the open, participatory, accessible process that lay behind the Convention should be kept alive to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of the Convention. Civil society should work to disseminate information in accessible formats, and provide education/training in the disability community and the general public.

Lex Grandia, President of the World Federation of the DeafBlind, speaking on behalf of the International Disability Caucus, said that the text was, more than any other declaration, a leading international legal document. National laws and practices needed to be adapted accordingly. The International Disability Caucus hoped and expected that this Convention would influence the future work of the Human Rights Council, and that changes in attitude towards persons with disabilities would also take place here.

Speaking in the question and answer segment that followed the opening statements were Spain, Cuba, Germany on behalf of the European Union, Mexico, Morocco, Croatia, India, Italy, Argentina, Japan, Uruguay, Russian Federation, United States, Austria, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Finland, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Brazil, Canada, Tunisia, Czech Republic, Indonesia, China, the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Children’s Fund, Costa Rica, Tanzania, Nigeria, Honduras, Algeria, Sudan and Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Non-governmental organizations speaking were International Save the Children Alliance and International Committee for the Coordination of National Institutions for Human Rights.

The Council then heard the presentation of the reports by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak.

Mr. Scheinin said that the main theme of his annual report to the Council was racial, ethnic or other forms of profiling in the fight against terrorism. In the fight against terrorism, terrorist profiles had been employed, for example, in the context of data mining initiatives, immigration controls, conducting stops, document checks or searches, and identifying possible suicide bombers. Ethnicity, national origin and religion were inaccurate indicators for a risk of terrorism, because the initial premise on which the profiling practices of many countries were based was highly doubtful. States should establish clear and strict standards as to what factors law enforcement agents may or may not employ for their search efforts in the counter-terrorism context.

Mr. Nowak said that the major aim of the Convention against Torture was to end impunity for torture by requiring States to define torture as a specific crime in national legislation. Impunity was one of the main reasons for the widespread practice of torture in all regions of the world, and universal jurisdiction was one of the most important methods of fighting it. States parties to the Convention should make use of their rights and obligations under the Convention to exercise universal jurisdiction. With regards to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, States were appealed to ratify the Optional Protocol, as it was one of the most exciting and important mechanisms established to prevent torture and ill-treatment world-wide, and to establish independent and effective national preventative mechanisms.

Speaking as concerned countries in response to the reports were Turkey and Jordan.

On Tuesday, 27 March, the Council will meet non-stop from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. during which time it will conclude its debate on the reports on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It will also hear presentations of reports by the Special Procedures on freedom of religion or belief, freedom of opinion and expression, the Working Group on arbitrary detention, summary executions, the Working Group on People of African Descent, and racism and racial discrimination.


Opening Statements for Special Event on Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol would be opened for signature on Friday. This was an appropriate moment to reconsider respective roles in promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, one of the most marginalized groups of individuals in all societies. That 10 percent of the world’s population lived with a disability added urgency. It had become apparent that existing human rights mechanisms did not consider the rights of persons with disabilities and persons with disabilities had underused the standing mechanisms. The new Convention aimed to fill a protection gap, and the Optional Protocol to establish periodic reporting functions. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would service the new treaty body and work towards establishing partnerships, providing leadership and engaging with States.

This would be an important promotion of a twin-track approach to human rights and disabilities and elevate the profile of the issue. The Office would continue working with the Special Procedures and treaty bodies like the Special Rapporteur on the right to education on the education rights of persons with disabilities.

The High Commissioner said she was eager to strengthen the Office’s partnerships. Persons with disabilities and their organizations would be important allies in the move from negotiation to implementation of the Convention. National human rights institutions would be crucial partners, and coordination with the United Nations system was also essential – particularly with the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. In addition to periodic meetings of Geneva-based organizations, a project with the World Health Organization had been embarked upon to improve rights of persons with disabilities. States remained key actors, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had been involved in awareness-raising in several countries including Uganda, Mexico, Afghanistan, Russia and South Africa, as well as guidance for parliamentarians to improve their understanding of the Convention. The Office and the United Nations as a whole should lead by example on the issue. There were already steps to improve access for persons with disabilities in the Geneva UN buildings. The Human Rights Council should also play a leadership role in the new treaty, and Ms. Arbour said she had proposed that analytical reports might be sent from the Office to the Council to facilitate consideration of the issues.

DON MACKAY, Permanent Representative of New Zealand and Chair of the Ad-Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, said the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the General Assembly in December 2006 was the end of a negotiation process embarked upon in 2001. For the international disability community, it had been a much longer journey. Initially, many Governments argued that there was no need for a new convention, as the existing human rights instruments applied to persons with disabilities, and in theory this argument was correct, but practice did not always follow theory. Some groups had tended to be a lesser priority for Governments for enforcement of their rights over the years.

Persons with disabilities had been characterised by the United Nations as “the world’s largest minority” - it was estimated that around ten percent of the world’s population lived with a disability. This figure was actually increasing through population growth, medical advances, and the ageing process. World leaders recognised that the time had come in their 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, which affirmed the need to finalise a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Once there was broad acceptance of the need for a convention, all of the participants, States and civil society together, worked extraordinarily hard to get a worthy outcome.

The Convention, in essence, elaborated in considerable detail the rights of persons with disabilities under international law, and set out a code of application for Governments. It was a practically focused Convention, as it was so closely informed by the experiences of persons with disabilities worldwide, as represented during the negotiations. It would be the benchmark for future standards and action. It spanned a wide range of real-life issues in considerable detail, including accessibility, personal mobility, health, education, employment, habilitation and rehabilitation, participation in political life, equality and non-discrimination. It marked a paradigm shift from thinking about disability as a social welfare matter to dealing with it as a human rights issue, which acknowledged that societal barriers and prejudices were themselves disabling. It was a rights-based Convention, not a social welfare Convention. Attitudes needed to change, and the Convention led the way in this.

SHEIKHA HISSA AL-THANI, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Disability, said that the drafting of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities started with her appointment as Special Rapporteur on Disability and she felt privileged to have witnessed the details of that process and to have been part of it. The issues of persons with disabilities belonged to both agendas – the social development agenda and the human rights agenda. The complementary relationship between these two agendas had now found expression in the brilliant document, which was the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Both the Standard Rules and the Convention were essential to achieving the human rights for persons with disabilities. This was not a convention on the rights of person’s disabilities only; this was a human rights convention. And as such, it should sit side by side with all human rights conventions and treaties belonging equally firmly on the human rights agenda as on the development agenda.

What set this treaty apart was the fact that it had been drafted with more input from civil society, disabled persons organizations, human rights institutes, development and social justice organizations, persons with disabilities themselves and their representative organizations, she said. Additionally, this treaty urged to restructure and reengineer the societies and communities. However, having a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities did not mean that the rights of persons with disabilities had been achieved. The reality of the lives of persons with disabilities in the world was far more grim and gloomy than many would like to admit. An international convention that safeguarded the rights of persons with disabilities would only remain a document if the lives of people with disabilities did not change on the ground and if the rights of persons with disabilities were not realized at the community level.

The reality of the lives of persons with disabilities also became clear through the Global Survey on Government Actions on the Implementation of the Standard Rules, she said. The drafting of this Convention had been an expression of international cooperation, however, it also obligated everyone to exercise international responsibility. Signatory countries to this Convention had a responsibility to ensure its implementation by working towards ensuring that the rights of every person with disabilities were realized on the ground in the community where he or she lived. Cultures, societies, communities, legislation, policies and programmes should be adopted and adapted to the new culture that had been expressed throughout the convention with its principles and its implications.

MONTHIAN BUNTAN, President of the Thailand Association of the Blind, said the open, participatory, accessible process that lay behind the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities should be kept alive to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of the Convention. To maintain the momentum the role of civil society was very important. Civil society should work to disseminate information in accessible formats, and provide education/training in the disability community and the general public. Effective communication, networking and collaboration should also be encouraged, notably using the Internet among organizations and among persons with disabilities as a whole. Civil society could contribute knowledge and experience to governments, UN agencies, and other concerned bodies through consultancy and advice on the Convention and on persons with disabilities in general. Direct participation between civil society groups, especially those with expertise, and other sectors could also promote respect and understanding in all matters relating to the Convention and its implementation and monitoring. The more actively and effectively the world participated, the better the outcome. There should also be an independent body to effectively follow up, monitor and implement the Convention. This would ensure integration and inclusion without compromising the principle of independence and self-determination.

The Human Rights Council could also help in transferring its knowledge and experience on the implementation of human rights instruments to the disabilities community. Here was a chance to learn about human rights issues from a disability perspective, and what accessibility, universal design, rehabilitation, reasonable accommodation, etc. really meant. The United Nations should take an effective role, sending clear messages to Member States to ensure the maximum number will sign ratify and implement the Convention. Member States should also help one another, through bilateral and/or international cooperation, to ensure successful implementation. Open, participatory and accessible process – as exemplified by the requirement, in the Convention itself, to publish the text of the Convention “in all available formats” should be primary objectives.

LEX GRANDIA, President of the World Federation of the DeafBlind, speaking on behalf of the International Disability Caucus, said the process of negotiations on the Convention had been very interesting for all participants. At the beginning, the persons with disabilities in the International Disability Caucus felt like a group of unknown people that delegations in the ad hoc committee needed to talk about. At the end they were consulted as experts, as persons fully capable of speaking for themselves, and this development was clearly reflected in the text of the Convention, which was now ready to be signed in New York in three days.

In Geneva, however, there was a need to look at the future of the implementation process of the Convention, Mr. Grandia said. The text was, more than any other declaration, a leading international legal document. National laws and practices needed to be adapted accordingly. The Council needed to see that it was inappropriate and unjust that human beings, with legal capacity, including the right to make their own decisions, were marginalized. It needed to understand how diverse humans could be, and how rich society became, respecting this diversity. All human rights were equal - and the Convention had to speak for itself.

The International Disability Caucus hoped and expected that this Convention would influence the future work of the Human Rights Council, and that changes in attitude towards persons with disabilities would also take place here. This Convention was now the normative standard of all the monitoring and decisive actions of the Council with regards to the human rights of persons with disabilities. The rights of persons with disabilities should become a regular item on the Council’s agenda. The rights of persons with disabilities should appear in the peer-review mechanism, in all actions addressing discrimination. The International Disability Caucus hoped that it would not be forgotten, marginalized, and discriminated any more in the future.

General Debate on Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

AMPARO VALCARCE GARCIA, Secretary of State of Social Services, Family and Disabilities of Spain, said the Convention made it clear that disability was a human rights issue. Persons with disabilities now had a valid instrument. Positive action must be implemented through the Council. The Convention would encourage that supervisor bodies became more aware of people with disabilities. Spain had the intention to be among the first States to ratify the Convention because it was seen as an important tool to ensure the rights of persons with disabilities. The Minister of Social Affairs and Labour would be signing it on Friday in New York. A specific article addressing women and children had also been included in the Convention. Spain had been dealing with the issue with a social perspective by launching the Convention to bring it to the attention of a large part of the society. With the signing of the Convention, a step to a more just society had been made.

RAFAEL GARCIA COLLADA (Cuba) said Cuba appreciated the holding of this important event. The Cuban revolution had always had the objective of an equal and just society, including the promotion of the rights of people with disabilities. There was an increase in the number of people with disabilities in today’s world. Cuba had been carrying out several operations in regard to the issue of people with eye problems. During the negotiation of the Convention, Cuba affirmed that an international programme fostering the rights of persons with disabilities in countries of the South should be enhanced.

MARTIN HUTH (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said all those involved in preparing the new international instrument should be congratulated. The European Union wondered how the progress on the human rights of persons with disabilities could continue on its path and what role could the High Commissioner for Human Rights play in mainstreaming the treaty body and rights of persons with disabilities. What would be needed to put in place effective processes? Concerning legislation and policies – how would the new convention influence existing standard rules? What would be needed to continue to engage in consultations nationally and internationally with persons with disabilities?

SOCORRO ROVIROSA PRIEGO (Mexico) said the special event was most timely in the context of the Human Rights Council’s work and the signature and ratification of the Convention. It was hoped this would be the first step in incorporating greater disability perspective in the work if the United Nations. Mexico called on representatives from civil society to remain actively involved with Governments and the United Nations to ensure early implementation of the Convention. Mexico would be among the first to sign the Convention and Optional Protocol

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the organization of this event was welcome, as it was just a few days before the signing in New York of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The adoption by the General Assembly of the Convention was welcomed, as it would further strengthen the protection of the rights of this important sector of society, which in Morocco had made its contribution. Morocco would sign the Convention, showing its commitment to the rights of persons with disabilities. Governmental action for persons with disabilities in Morocco was based on a number of areas, a plan of action at the national level, including a programme for rehabilitation in the community for persons with disabilities. It was hoped the new Convention would enter into force soon in order to make it easier to recognise that marginalized sector of society, and it should be given the broadest possible dissemination.

GORDAN MARKOTIC (Croatia) said the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities merited special attention since it focused on one of the most vulnerable segments of the world’s population today. The Convention was the first human rights treaty adopted in the twenty-first century, and the first which had been drafted with unprecedented participation of civil society in general and persons with disabilities and their respective organizations in particular. But the adoption of the Convention was just the first step: it was equally important that the whole process be continued through signing, ratifying and most importantly, implementing the Convention itself. A number of improvements had been achieved with regard to better inclusion of this vulnerable segment of Croatian society in areas such as education, housing, employment and social and health protection. It was hoped the Convention would enter into force soon, and that it would be implemented properly.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said India was very satisfied to have been associated closely with the process leading to the adoption of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. India had long been committed to the elimination of specific barriers that persons with disabilities were facing. The Constitution of India implicitly mandated an inclusive society for all including persons with disabilities. India was looking forward to signing the International Convention at an early date. The Human Rights Council should serve as an effective forum for advocacy and awareness-raising of the rights of persons with disabilities and also for the exchange of good practices in the implementation of disability rights.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said Italy associated itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. Italy was happy that the first big human rights instrument of the twenty-first century would be open for signature and ratification in New York. The text would represent a major shift in the way the world treated ten per cent of its population, approximately 650 million disabled people. Italy wanted to reiterate the need for a prompt and effective ratification and implementation of this legal instrument, which marked a major change in thinking about disability.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina enthusiastically supported the Convention. Argentina had played an active role in the negotiation of the treaty. Argentina would sign the Convention in March 2007. The Convention contained numerous references to the human rights protected by other instruments and also mentioned other rights that were of general validity but required specific State action to guarantee them in the case of persons with disabilities. The Convention should lead to fairer access to justice, work, health, education and other basic rights.

TOMOKO MATSUZAWA (Japan) said Japan had participated positively in the negotiation process and persons with disabilities had had a high influence on the process. Japan had worked closely with non-governmental organizations during this period and this participation was one of the special features of the Convention. Japan was seriously considering signing and ratifying the Convention. Domestic laws had been revised in Japan to take account of persons with disabilities and to enhance participation in society by persons with disabilities.

PAULINE DAVIES (Uruguay) said the holding of this special event was a chance to discuss and exchange views on the role to be played in the Human Rights Council in the implementation of the newly-adopted Convention and its Optional Protocol, in the elaboration of which Uruguay participated fully. These open debates were very helpful. It was essential that through its mechanisms, the Council protect the rights of persons with disabilities, and ensure that they enjoy the right to full participation, social life and development. Inclusive education was also a priority. The promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities could be enhanced through the perspective of the work of several Special Rapporteurs, so that the issue could be approached from a cross-cutting angle, incorporating several perspectives. What would be the most urgent action expected by the Council, the speaker asked.

GALINA KHVAN (Russian Federation) said the international community had taken almost five years to elaborate the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It was most important to adopt this first Convention in the twenty-first century, to ensure the full integration of persons with disabilities in all walks of life, and to apply international human rights to them without any forms of discrimination. It was impossible to resolve such issues through just Governmental efforts - the implication of civil society was most important. The process of elaboration at each stage had been supported by organizations of persons with disabilities all around the world. The Russian Federation welcomed the initiative of the Council to hold a special meeting devoted to the Convention, however, expected that the whole range of questions related to the rights of persons with disabilities would continue to be under the aegis of the Commission on Social Development. It was important to prevent possible duplication of work. It was hoped the Convention would give a new impetus to the various aspects of activity of the various interested parties, and would promote good practice in this sphere.

STEVEN HILL (United States) said the United States welcomed the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The United States was pleased to have actively participated in the Ad Hoc Committee’s work, including through providing information on its national law and policy as well on its foreign assistance programmes related to disabilities. The United States greatly appreciated the constructive role that members of civil society had played throughout the Convention process. The Convention was based on respect for the inherent dignity and worth of all persons with disabilities. The United States asked what the ideas were for how the robust policies reflected in the Convention could be integrated into the Council’s work.

MICHAEL SCHOISWOHL (Austria) said Austria wished to join all participants in congratulating those, whose dedication and efforts had made the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities possible. Austria fully supported the statements and questions by the European Union and would in addition like to draw attention to the important linkages between the new Convention and other international instruments. Austria hoped that the possible synergies between the Ottawa Convention and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would be considered more closely in the future.

SADIA FAIZUNNESA (Bangladesh) said it was unfortunate that persons with disabilities evoked sympathy rather than respect. The Convention would hopefully change this perception. It was a shift in thinking about disability from a social welfare issue to a human rights issue, and it was also good economics to ensure disabled persons would be able to live up to their potential as employees, entrepreneurs, consumers and taxpayers. “Progressive realization” of provisions was called for in the Convention and it was hoped that international assistance would be available where resources were limited in developing countries.

MARGARET HO POH YEOK (Malaysia) said Malaysia supported the Convention and had held intensive discussions, including with persons with disabilities, with a view to Malaysia becoming a party to the Convention. To ensure that persons with disabilities enjoyed the same rights as everyone else in education, health, justice, and all other areas, Malaysia was formulating a policy and a plan of action which would lead to an Act for persons with disabilities.

KIRSTI POHJANKUKKA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the Nordic Countries Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, said the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by women, men and children with disabilities was an issue of non-discrimination, and it was a matter of fulfilling the intention of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The protection and promotion of the enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, was a main priority for the Nordic countries. Creating a new Convention took a lot of hard work. Without the engagement and expertise of the non-governmental organizations for persons with disabilities, there could not have been a Convention with such a broad support and so firmly based in experience. The Convention adapted the human rights obligations of States to fit with the situation of persons with disabilities, through the concept of reasonable accommodation. Hopefully this Convention would make an effective instrument for the practical implementation of the human rights of persons with disabilities.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said with the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it was hoped that the current human rights treaty system would be equipped with a valuable treaty that filled the protection gap in the human rights of vulnerable persons in any society, and further made the system complete. The Korean Government had made great contribution to the inclusion of the article on women with disabilities through incessant discussions, exchanges of views, and comments with other nations in the Committee. Strong enthusiasm shown by all Member States of the United Nations in the discussions of the Ad Hoc Committee should continue if there was to be a transformation of the spirit and ideals of the Convention into a reality on the ground.

KASEM YAOWARAT (Thailand) said that Thailand had long attached great importance to the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. Thailand had actively participated since the beginning in the drafting of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Thailand was proud to announce that the Thai Government would sign the Convention on March 30 in New York. To date, Thailand already had the 1991 Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act, which could accommodate most aspects of the Convention. However, the Act was now in the final stage of being amended to ensure better and wider protection for people with disabilities. Thailand was doing its best to work towards the full realization of all rights in the Convention.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that Brazil had had a pro-active role in eight negotiating rounds of the ad hoc group that produced the text of the Convention. Brazil was considered one of three most inclusive countries in the Americas in terms of the legislation and the application of public policies in favour of people with disabilities. Concerning the question of how the Council could be more effective in supporting the Convention, promotion, international cooperation and monitoring were the three key factors. Promotion should be wide and focused on other United Nations agencies. International cooperation should encompass providing technical and financial support. With regard to monitoring, the Convention had an in-built mechanism as defined in the Optional Protocol. The Council should be a provider of strong support to the activities of the Committee.

JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said Canada was proud to have contributed to the development of the International convention on the rights of Persons with disabilities alongside delegations of other member States and with the active involvement of non-governmental organization representatives. While this Convention did not create new rights, it prevented discrimination so that the human rights of persons with disabilities, which were the same rights guaranteed to everyone, were understood and ensured by States. The opening of the Convention for signature on 30 March in New York would be an important step forward. Canada was keen to proceed with signing the Convention at the earliest possible opportunity and had undertaken the necessary domestic consultations to enable it to do so as a matter of priority. Canada hoped the Convention would receive similar support from all nations.

MOHAMED LESSIR (Tunisia) said the international community must give greater attention to the rights of persons with disabilities. Integration and participation of persons with disabilities had increased in Tunisia. Measures included the Institute for the Promotion of the Handicapped, training of specialized personnel, increased social security contributions for handicapped children, a special account for persons with disabilities fed by income from monopoly products and postal charges, tax exonerations and reforms favouring handicapped persons, a national strategy for integration of handicapped children in schools, and others.

PETR HNATIK (Czech Republic) said the Convention was an exquisite example of negotiations where all the delegations during the negotiation period had proved their good will to focus on the human rights substance and disregard political differences. The process had stayed open at all stages to civil society, and was fully inclusive to persons with disabilities. The Czech Republic would sign both instruments, the Convention and its Optional Protocol, and would do its utmost to ratify them as soon as possible. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, however, probably had a more realistic, day-to-day affairs picture of the life of the new Convention in her head, and should therefore elaborate on what the entry of the Convention into force and subsequent creation of the new monitoring Committee would mean for the work of her Office, and how big a burden she expected it to be.

ADE PETRANTO (Indonesia) said this was a milestone development that would at last cater to the rights of persons with disabilities, the most hard-done-by and disenfranchised segment of society. It was high time that the rights of persons with disabilities, and their inherent dignity and worth, were proclaimed and defended on a par with those of all other categories and groups forming the human race. The imminent adoption and opening for signature of the Convention put an end to this lacuna, and heralded the beginning of what would be a new era for the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, including the full incorporation of a rights-based approach in the overall process of development. It was hoped that the long-overdue institutionalisation of the rights of persons with disabilities would finally bring about the recognition and appreciation by the non-disabled of their value and contribution to society.

SHEN YONGXIANG (China) said that the Convention was a milestone in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. China appreciated the hard work done for this purpose. China was one of the earliest advocates of the draft of the Convention and made its own contribution to it. The Convention would provide a useful framework for the legal assistance of persons with disabilities.

LUZ ANGELA MELO, of United Nations Populations Fund, said that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was the first human rights treaty to elaborate the rights of persons with disabilities and to specifically mention the right to sexual and reproductive health. Historically, disabled persons had been marginalized, stigmatised and deprived of opportunities and freedoms. The Convention gave hope that barriers, which had hindered persons living disabilities from enjoying their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others, would finally be lifted. The United Nations Population Fund had developed a strategy in addressing the sexual and reproductive health needs of persons with disabilities, including the instruments of advocating for the fulfilment of these rights and building institutional-capacity to improve access and delivery of sexual and reproductive health services.

CAROLINE BAKKER, of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said the Convention gave status, visibility and authority to disability as a human rights issue. UNICEF had participated at different stages of the drafting of the Convention, in partnership with the International Disability Caucus, to advocate specific attention to the rights of children with disabilities. It was pleased to see these rights referred to throughout the text, and the consequent raising of the profile of children with disabilities as a complement to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention on the Rights of the Child had previously been the only international human rights treaty to make specific provision for the rights of persons with disabilities. The Committee on the Rights of the Child deserved recognition for the sustained attention it had given to disability–based discrimination in its communications with State parties. The new Convention reinforced the Convention on the Rights of the Child and as a combined force the two treaties helped ensure that children with disabilities would not be relegated to the margins of society.

ALEXANDRA SEGURA HERNANDEZ (Costa Rica) said Costa Rica was pleased to have been involved in the development of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This was an instrument for international social cooperation. It showed that the traditional medical model of disability had been overcome, that the link between poverty and disability had been clearly established, and the emphasis should now be placed on early ratification.

MWENDWA MALECELA (Tanzania) said disability in all forms existed in all parts of the world. The human-inflicted factors could and should be addressed, for they were the major causes of disabilities in many parts of the world, particularly in places that faced civil strife, famine, authoritarian regimes and poverty. It was due to this inescapable fact that the Council should unite to address not only the persisting inequalities and lack of opportunities experienced by people with disabilities in the world, but also factors that caused and accelerated their plight. Poverty was both the cause and effect of disability in developing countries: it was a barrier to the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Convention, and could be surmounted through State Parties’ own efforts and genuine international cooperation. The only remaining challenge ahead was the implementation of the Convention, and all Member States should continue promoting and protecting, within their territories and beyond, all human rights in concord with the principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependency and interrelatedness of human rights.

USMAN SARKI (Nigeria) said this was a very important and special event. The adoption of the Convention was a milestone in the history of the United Nations, and added to the existing core human rights instruments, enriching the ability to protect and promote the rights of one of the most vulnerable groups of society. The rights of persons with disabilities were truly protected in Nigeria, which had provided full and equal rights for all disabled persons in 1983, including vocational training, employment and retraining, employment and care. The international community was congratulated for the adoption of the Convention, and all those who had endeavoured to bring it to fruition were thanked. Disability was not a matter of choice or design; those who suffered from it should receive the same treatment, respect and consideration as all other persons. This Convention should provide the necessary framework for the upholding of the dignity of persons with disabilites.

SANDRA PONCE (Honduras) said Honduras was pleased that speakers had emphasized the need to establish a linkage between poverty and disabilities. In Honduras, domestic legislation was adopted in favour of persons with disabilities. Disabilities were thus recognized as human rights issues in Honduras. The State was concerned about how to implement the right safeguards. Action was needed to incorporate the Convention in developing countries. A question was raised how this could be addressed through international solidarity.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria wished to express its solidarity with persons with disabilities across the world. All were challenged to give concrete expression to the determination to uphold their rights as citizens and their mainstreaming into society. Non-governmental organizations also had a role to play here. This was not an issue of compassion but the expression of a duty, which behoved every member of the community. Algeria had adopted a law in 2002, which introduced a quota system for persons with disabilities, which would be progressively extended to all the civil service. Legislation was being drawn up also to provide incentives for their employment in the private sector. At the international level, Algeria was going to be present at the United Nations in New York on 30 March to join other nations in signing the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities.

IDREES MOHAMED ALI (Sudan) said Sudan had contributed to the drafting of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and was convinced of the importance of reintegrating persons with disabilities into public life, an issue central to Islam too. The Convention had taken into account social and cultural diversity. It was important also to try to assure the rights of the disabled under conditions of occupation.

BILAL HAYEE (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC countries had been active in the negotiation process and were committed to the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. Islam enjoined that no distinction should be made between persons on the basis of disability and further demanded special care to be shown towards those with disabilities. The social development aspect of the Convention was also of value, and capacity building to help implement the Convention and its provisions would be an important area. Several OIC countries were currently consulting to create the necessary enabling legislation to permit implementation of the Convention.

HENDI EL MAHDI ABDULATIF (Libya) said this was an important event for the United Nations, and the Convention would become an important international instrument, along with the other human rights instruments, to protect the rights of persons with disabilities and translate theories into concrete measures. In line with previous efforts, by observing an international year for persons with disabilities, Libya had headed a consultative committee to prepare for this year. Libya had effectively participated in the negotiations on the Convention, and would be foremost among those who would stand to sign the Convention when it was open for that in New York.

GERESON LANDSDOWN, of International Save the Children, said the Council’s attention should be drawn to the impact that the Convention, if implemented fully, could have on the lives of children with disabilities. Globally, children with disabilities faced shocking violations of their rights: very limited access to education in developing countries, disproportionate vulnerability to poverty, and significantly higher risk of sexual and physical violence. Children with disabilities should have their views given due weight, which was a right embodied in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but was widely disregarded for children with disabilities. The Council should explain how it would ensure that the experiences of children with disabilities informed all relevant aspects of the work of the body.

STEPHANIE DJIAN, of International Committee for the Coordination of National Institutions for Human Rights, hoped that the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would take place as soon as possible. There should be broad accession to the Optional Protocol. The national control mechanism was considered as very important. The organization encouraged States to open a debate in their countries to identify the most appropriate instruments to implement the provisions of the Convention. National institutions should consider at the national level the question of the implementation. National institutions could contribute to the work of the Council.

Concluding Remarks on Special Event on Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding, said all the questions to her had been focused on the implementation of the Convention and this was a good sign. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had already taken initiatives regarding synergies between various treaty bodies to look at issues of mutual interest. Treaty bodies were very alive to the imminent coming into force of the Convention. Concerning the capacity to assist, she said the usual dedicated resources would be put in place when the monitoring committee was active, and voluntary non-earmarked contributions to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were welcome to give the flexibility needed to pursue these initiatives. Ms. Arbour added that Paris-principle compliant strategies for national implementation and monitoring would be needed.

SHEIKHA HISSA AL-THANI, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Disability, said this special event completed the work which had been done on the Convention. All the interventions had developed a lot of the ideas that the countries gave in order to provide protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. The questions on how to change and bring the Convention into reality were also encouraging. On what would be the destiny of the implementation of standard rules after the signing and implementation of the Convention, this was often a contentious point before, during and after the signing the Convention. During the implementation of standard rules, there were ongoing efforts to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. These rules were needed as a guideline, and at the implementation level facilitated the role of the Convention.

On the role of civil society, it was of paramount importance to take into account their views, especially that of representatives of persons with disabilities, through a monitoring body to study the implementation of the Convention. As for the ombudsman, as a mechanism for implementation, what had been said in this regard by Finland was applauded. As far as developing countries were concerned, those that faced and would face difficulties in implementation, they should be aware of aid and international cooperation in this regard. Fulfilment of the international responsibility and commitment would take place at the international and national levels thanks to the standard rules.

DON MACKAY, Permanent Representative of New Zealand and Chair of the United Nations Ad hoc Committee on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said that concerning the role played by disabilities-organizations in the implementation of the Convention, it came out that those organizations could contribute a lot concerning best-practice. There was a great deal of scope for those organizations to contribute further to the work of the Council and at the national level as well. Civil society could also assist in this regard.

MONTHIAN BUNTAN, President of the Thailand Association of the Blind, responding, said the process that had served successfully over the past few years was one of openness and accessibility and he hoped this would continue, with disabled persons’ organizations participating fully in the implementation of the Convention.

LEX GRANDIA, President of the World Federation of the DeafBlind, speaking on behalf of the International Disability Caucus, said he was delighted to hear so many positive approaches from the Council, and was challenged by the idea as to how civil society could be involved in the implementation process. The International Disability Caucus was continuing in its work. Persons with disabilities did not feel like a vulnerable group: they felt like persons with capacities, and hoped and wondered how to change this perception, including within the Council.

Reports before the Council

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin (A/HRC/4/26 and Add.1-3), which includes an overview of the Special Rapporteur's activities since 15 December 2005 and his views on two thematic issues: "profiling" in the context of countering terrorism; and suicide attacks as a form of terrorism. On profiling, the Special Rapporteur concludes that terrorist profiling practices that are based on "race" are incompatible with human rights, whereas profiling based on ethnicity, national origin and/or religion are an unsuitable and ineffective means of identifying potential terrorists and entail considerable negative consequences that may render these measures counterproductive. The Special Rapporteur recommends either universal or random security checks as preferred alternatives. On suicide attacks, the Special Rapporteur says this form of terrorism poses significant challenges to counter-terrorism measures that are at the same time effective and compatible with human rights. Intelligence agencies need urgently to address the complex cultural and socio-economic issues around suicide attacks and terrorism in general, and more resources should be invested in research on both the conditions conducive to the spread of suicide bombings, as well as the methods employed by States and other actors to combat them.

A first addendum to the report contains summaries of communications transmitted to Governments in 2006, as well as replies received up to 31 January 2007. The Special Rapporteur corresponded with Governments in 33 communications and issued 7 press releases that relate to a total of 24 countries or territories. In most cases, the Special Rapporteur acted upon information received from reliable sources concerning individual cases of alleged breaches of fundamental freedoms and human rights in the context of countering terrorism. In addition, he also took action with respect to legislative developments and proposals undertaken by a number of Member States. A second addendum contains a report of the Special Rapporteur's visit to Turkey, in which he finds significant progress has been achieved in terms of respect for human rights, but that challenges remain, in particular with regard to the broad definition of terrorism enshrined in the current legislation, the large number of prosecutions related to terrorism, continuing restrictions on the freedom of association and expression, and impunity. The Special Rapporteur also commends some positive practices, such as the scheme for compensating victims of terrorism and counter-terrorism operations, and the safeguards for suspects of terrorism introduced in the last years. In a third addendum, the Special Rapporteur submits his study of Australia’s counter-terrorism law and practice. Given that the study identifies a number of actual and potential human rights violations within Australia’s counter-terrorism regime, the Special Rapporteur urges Australia to enact federal legislation implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and provide remedial mechanisms for the protection of rights and freedoms.

The Council has before it the note verbale of Turkey of 20 February 2007 addressed to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/4/G/4), transmitting Turkey's comments on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, on his visit to Turkey. In its letter, Turkey takes issue with a number of Mr. Scheinin's positions, including with regard to the scope of the Special Rapporteur's mandate, the scope of the definition of terrorism and terrorist acts in Turkish law, access by defence lawyers in terrorist cases to related documents, the independence and impartiality of the newly established special chambers of Heavy Penal Courts, and others.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak (A/HRC/4/33 and Add.1-3), which summarizes the activities of the Special Rapporteur between August and December 2006 (i.e. since the submission of his interim report, A/61/259), including updates on country visits to the Russian Federation and Paraguay, future visits and pending requests for invitations, and highlights of key presentations and meetings. The Special Rapporteur discusses the obligation of States parties to the Convention against Torture to establish universal jurisdiction, noting that, with few exceptions, States remain reluctant to make use of their rights and obligations to exercise universal jurisdiction. The Special Rapporteur discusses recent practice and the developments related to the case of the ex-dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré, and calls upon States to exercise universal jurisdiction to fight impunity and deny torturers any safe haven in the world. Section IV of the report contains a discussion on the importance of cooperation between the Special Rapporteur and regional mechanisms established to combat torture. Section V discusses the right of victims of torture to a remedy.

The summary of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur from 16 December 2005 to 15 December 2006 and the replies received thereto from Governments by 31 December 2006 are found in addendum 1 to the present report. Addendum 2 contains a summary of the information provided by Governments and non-governmental organizations on implementation of recommendations of the Special Rapporteur following country visits. Addendum 3 is the report of the Special Rapporteur's visit to Jordan, in which he concludes that the practice of torture persists in that country because of a lack of awareness of the problem, and because of institutionalized impunity. The fact that no Jordanian official has ever been prosecuted for torture under article 208 of the Penal Code underlines this conclusion. Among a number of measures recommended to prevent and suppress acts of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, is that the Al-Jafr Correction and Rehabilitation Centre be closed without delay.

Presentation of Reports of Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, said that when he first appeared before the Human Rights Council in September 2006, he had expressed his dissatisfaction at the low level of cooperation by Governments with his mandate. Today he was glad to announce that things had improved. He had received invitations from the Governments of South Africa, the United States and Israel to conduct country visits. During each of those visits, an assessment of the compatibility of the law and practice of the country’s counter-terrorism measures with human rights and fundamental freedoms would be conducted. The main theme of his annual report to the Council was racial, ethnic or other forms of profiling in the fight against terrorism. “Profiling” was generally defined as the systematic association of sets of physical, behavioural or psychological characteristics with particular offences and their use as a basis for making law enforcement decisions. However, when law enforcement agents used broad profiles that reflected unexamined generalizations, their practices may constitute disproportionate interferences with human rights.

In particular, predictive profiling based on stereotypical assumptions that persons of a certain “race”, national or ethnic origin or religion were particularly likely to commit crime, could lead to practices that were incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination and many other human rights, including the right of privacy, freedom of movement and liberty of person, Mr. Scheinin said. In the fight against terrorism, terrorist profiles had been employed, for example, in the context of data mining initiatives, immigration controls, conducting stops, document checks or searches, and identifying possible suicide bombers. Alarmingly often the profiles had been based on Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, Asian or Central Asian origin, religion, ethnicity or nationality. The use of terrorist profiles that included criteria such as ethnicity, national origin and religion was not always impermissible. If in the context of an already committed terrorist crime, there were reasonable grounds to assume that the suspect fit a certain descriptive profile, then the reliance on characteristics such as ethnic appearance, national origin or religion was justified. The situation was different in the case of general preventive counter-terrorism efforts. Ethnicity, national origin and religion were inaccurate indicators for a risk of terrorism, because the initial premise on which the profiling practices of many countries were based was highly doubtful.

Real terrorist groups had regularly proved their ability to adapt their strategies, with the use of female or child suicide bombers to avoid the stereotype of the male terrorist was just one example, he said. In the fight against terrorism it was of great value to be able to identify potential perpetrators of acts of terrorism before they committed the crime. In practice, it may not always be possible for law enforcement agencies to rely on specific intelligence or useful behavioural indicators in the context of preventive counter-terrorism efforts. States should establish clear and strict standards as to what factors law enforcement agents may or may not employ for their search efforts in the counter-terrorism context. One of the conclusions in the report was that existing international standards were adequate in respect of suicide attacks as a form of terrorism. There was no need for new loosened standards in respect of the use of firearms to prevent suicide terrorism. The global counter-terrorism strategy stated a list of conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, including prolonged unresolved conflicts, lack of rule of law and good governance and violations of human rights, among others. These pronunciations were in line with the Special Rapporteur’s understanding of the importance of the promotion of human rights in the long term to prevent terrorism, including suicide terrorism.

MANFRED NOWAK, Special Rapporteur on Torture, said the major aim of the Convention against Torture was to end impunity for torture by requiring States to define torture as a specific crime in national legislation, which was subject to appropriate penalties, given its gravity. Impunity was one of the main reasons for the widespread practice of torture in all regions of the world, and universal jurisdiction was one of the most important methods of fighting impunity by ensuring that torturers found no safe haven. States parties to the Convention should make use of their rights and obligations under the Convention to exercise universal jurisdiction. Global human rights problems could be addressed only by concerted and well-coordinated cooperation among the whole array of actors involved in the realisation of human rights. Given that victims of torture often suffered from long-term physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorders, reparation in the form of long-term medical, psychological and social rehabilitation was as important as criminal prosecution of perpetrators, guarantees of non-repetition, and monetary compensation.

The Special Rapporteur had intended to visit the Russian Federation, but had been compelled to announce the postponement of the visit because the Government maintained that certain elements of the terms of reference for the visit would contravene Russian federal legislation. The Russian Federation was therefore called upon to demonstrate, by example, its commitment to human rights. The Special Rapporteur had also visited Jordan, and noted that the practice of torture persisted because of a lack of awareness of the problem and because of institutionalised impunity. Torture was still widely practised in Paraguay, primarily during the first days of police custody as a means of obtaining confessions, and facilitated by impunity. In Nigeria, the Special Rapporteur had concluded that torture and ill-treatment were widespread in police custody. The Special Rapporteur would be visiting Togo, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia in the future.

Since he assumed the mandate, the Special Rapporteur said, the aim of carrying out country visits was to see first-hand what the true practice and situation of torture and ill-treatment was; to describe the situation in a frank, objective and transparent way. This often made Governments defensive, but they needed to step up and be courageous in embracing efforts to eradicate torture. More challenging than carrying out a visit was what happened after a report was published; the challenge was to seize upon and maintain the interest generated by the visit, and to ensure that the recommendations remained on the Government agenda. With regards to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, States were appealed to to ratify the Optional Protocol, as it was one of the most exciting and important mechanisms established to prevent torture and ill-treatment world-wide, and to establish independent and effective national preventative mechanisms.


Statements by Concerned Countries

AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey), speaking as a concerned country in response to the report of Mr. Scheinin, said terrorism was the biggest threat the world now faced and a crime against humanity. In combatting terrorism, human rights should not be sacrificed. Counter terrorism in Turkey had always been subject to judicial scrutiny, primarily by the European Court of Human Rights. Since 2001, far-reaching reform had been begun in Turkey aimed at strengthening democracy, consolidating the rule of law, and ensuring full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. The definition of terrorism in Turkey was in line with constitutional legal norms, and term “the use of force and violence” was legally established as a precondition to terrorism in a 2003 amendment. Effectiveness of Damage Assessment Commissions established in Turkey was questioned in the report, but these were deemed useful instrument by the European Court of Human Rights. Provincial and District Human Rights Boards had been restructured aimed at enhancing inclusiveness and participation by non-governmental organizations. The issue of internally displaced persons had been covered by the report of the Independent Expert on internally displaced persons earlier in the week and he had praised Turkey’s strategies. Regarding repatriation of refugees in Makhmour camp, Turkey had been working with the United Nations Refugee Agency and other relevant parties to create conditions for voluntary return and reintegration. Many legal safeguards had been introduced to prevent torture. The report had made a link between terrorism and the economic situation in East and South East Turkey, but did not explain why terrorists had targeted schools, social institutions, factories and income generating activities in those regions. Sound analysis of root causes of terrorism demanded a cross-disciplinary approach not limited to a legal perspective only. However, neither root causes nor prevention of terrorism were part of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. It was a security risk assessment issue entirely beyond his mandate.

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan), speaking as a concerned country in response to the report of Mr. Nowak, said a summary of the report was presented to the Council last year, and had been presented in various forms in different fora without necessarily added value. The whole exercise of the Special Procedures should be viewed as constructive interactive dialogue with the respective countries, and it was in this spirit that Jordan received Mr. Nowak. Some of the recommendations of the report were generally valid, and the Government had already started implementing some of them. These recommendations coincided with what the authorities had already started to plan a long time ago.

The report still contained several inaccurate narratives and unjustified conclusions. Jordan did not deny that some individual cases of torture did happen and could happen in the future, but the number of cases did not support the conclusion of Mr. Nowak that it was widespread and routine in Jordan. Jordanian officials whom he met denied that torture as a policy existed or was tolerated in their respective facilities. Claiming that laws and regulations were not applied in cases of torture and ill-treatment was out of keeping. The Jordanian Government was fully aware of the legal and human implication of torture, which ran contrary to the cultural, religious and legal precepts constituting guiding principles for the Government. Although the Government did not agree with some of Mr. Nowak’s conclusions, it would nonetheless seriously review those recommendations and approach them positively.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07023E