COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CONSIDERS THE INITIAL REPORT OF ARMENIA
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Armenia on its implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Vigen Kocharyan, Deputy Minister of Justice of Armenia, introducing the report, said that the draft law on the protection of persons with disabilities, which was now before Parliament, lay the ground for a transition to a rights-based model of disability and the participation of persons with disabilities in social and political life on an equal footing with others. Armenia had declared 2016 the Year of Persons with Disabilities to promote greater public awareness about the rights of persons with disabilities. The comprehensive programme 2017-2021 on the social inclusion of persons with disabilities lay down the strategy and roadmap which contained targets and clear deadlines for implementation. The transition to inclusive education had started with the 2014 amendment to the law on general education, which provided for the assessment of educational needs of persons with disabilities and the development of individual learning programmes, and for the conversion of 15 special schools into regional centres for pedagogical and psychological support. By 2021, Armenia would have a full inclusive education in place.
In the discussion, Committee Experts recognized the efforts of Armenia to start the necessary change and transformation, but were concerned about huge challenges in the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities to live in the society on an equal footing with others. The medical model of disability remained prevalent and deeply rooted in the society, while the newly drafted Constitution focused on impairment and not social barriers and preserved the guardianship regime. This was of great concern to Experts who inquired about steps taken to repeal provisions allowing the limiting of legal capacity and to replace the guardian system with supported decision-making. The situation of children with disabilities was of great concern as well; medical staff encouraged parents of disabled children to leave them in the care of the State and several thousands were still in institutions where they were at risk of violence and abuse. The deinstitutionalizing process – which was about human rights and respect for dignity of each person with disabilities - was failing, because of lack of knowledge and awareness, lack of financing and failure to consult with communities and civil society. Experts also asked about the protection from violence and abuse of persons with disabilities, and steps taken to prohibit multiple and intersecting discrimination, particularly against women with disabilities.
Mr. Kocharyan, in his concluding remarks, thanked the Experts for the constructive dialogue which would be a strong impetus for the future work of Armenia on the full social inclusion of persons with disabilities.
In his concluding remarks, Jonas Ruskus, Committee Expert and country Rapporteur for Armenia, stressed that the rights of persons with disabilities were not privileges and urged Armenia to implement the concluding observations and to ensure that financial constraints would not be an excuse for continued discrimination of persons with disabilities.
Theresia Degener, Committee Chairperson, concluded by expressing hope that the Committee’s concluding observations would help Armenia to further implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the country.
The delegation of Armenia included representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. today, 30 March, to begin its consideration of the initial report of Honduras (CRPD/C/HND/1).
Report
The initial report of Armenia can be read here: CRPD/C/ARM/1.
Presentation of the Report
VIGEN KOCHARYAN, Deputy Minister of Justice of Armenia, said that a new law on the protection of persons with disabilities had been drafted; it adopted a definition of disability in line with the Convention, and thus lay the ground for a transition to a rights-based model of disability and the participation of persons with disabilities in social and political life on an equal footing with others. The monitoring of the implementation of this draft law was awarded to the Ombudsman of Armenia. The bill was before Parliament and its adoption was expected shortly. The law on employment had introduced quotas on the employment of persons with disabilities in public and private companies; in 2013 the law had been expanded and obliged State organizations with more than 100 employees to adopt a three per cent quota for persons with disabilities. As of this year, 2017, the employment quotas of one per cent were applicable also to non-State organizations. The application of new guidelines on the determination of disability would start, on a pilot basis, in April 2017.
The year 2016 had been declared the Year of Persons with Disabilities in Armenia to promote greater public awareness about the situation and rights of persons with disabilities. The comprehensive programme 2017-2021 on social inclusion of persons with disabilities laid down the strategy and a roadmap, with targets and clear deadlines for their implementation. Most of the rights contained on the Convention had already, in one way or another, been included in the draft law on persons with disabilities, or in other laws in the country. For example, the law on urban planning included accessibility standards and requirements in all new construction, and introduced the obligation of adopting a plan of measures to ensure that existing buildings were accessible. All public transport must be accessible to persons with disabilities as well. Armenia had started its transition to inclusive education with the 2014 amendment to the law on general education. According to this law, the education needs of children with disabilities were assessed at three levels, and 15 special schools were to be reorganized and converted to regional centres for pedagogical and psychological support.
The law had also introduced changes in the financing of inclusive education which enabled the development of individual education plans for children with disabilities, and posts of teachers’ assistants had been created in schools. The programme for transition to inclusive education was being implemented in cooperation with international and local partners. Armenia would also ensure that pre-school education was inclusive as well. Persons of first and second category of disability and children with disabilities had the right to free education in fee-paying institutions. A draft amendment to the law on psychiatric care had been introduced to strengthen the rights of persons with mental health issues; it had also laid down the judicial procedures for the determination of status and defined the need of medical expertise. The aim of the draft law was to ensure that the procedures applied to persons with mental health issues conformed to international standards. Armenia was aware that many challenges remained in the implementation of the Convention and hoped that the dialogue today would show the way forward.
Questions from the Committee Experts
JONAS RUSKUS, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Armenia, acknowledged the efforts to initiate changes and start the implementation of the Convention, and in particular commended the law on inclusive education by 2025, the declaration of 2016 as the Year of Persons with Disabilities, and the drafting of the law on the protection of persons with disabilities. Still, huge challenges remained in the realization of the right of persons with disabilities to live in the society on an equal footing with others. Some provisions of the draft law including recently introduced provisions in the Constitution were in deep conflict with human rights standards and principles, of which very disturbing was the focus on impairment and not social barriers and the freezing of the guardianship regime in the newly drafted State Constitution. A medical based concept of disability remained prevalent and deeply rooted in the mentality of the society – staff working with persons with disabilities, judges, civil servants and Parliamentarians.
Another concern was the invisibility of women with disabilities in the legislation, and the laws still did not contain one provision to protect women and girls with disabilities from discrimination and violence. The situation of children with disabilities was of great concern as well; there were still more than 500 children with disabilities in institutions where they were at risk of violence and abuse. The medical approach to disability prevailed here as well, with medical staff even encouraging parents to leave their children with disabilities in care of the State. The deinstitutionalizing process was failing, due to lack of awareness by decision-making authorities, lack of funding and lack of consultations with civil society and local communities. Mr. Ruskus stressed that deinstitutionalization was about human rights and respect for dignity of each person with disabilities.
Another Committee Expert noted that the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the grounds of disability and asked about practical possibilities for a person with disabilities to obtain legal remedies for the violation of their constitutionally guaranteed protection from discrimination. Turning to the draft law on the protection of persons with disabilities, the Expert asked whether it considered that denial of reasonable accommodation was disability-based discrimination and whether it contained any provisions prohibiting multiple and intersectional discrimination. The delegation was asked to explain the situation concerning the application of accessibility standards, the results of the implementation of the law on public transportation, and to what extent it was difficult or easy for a wheelchair user to visit the country.
With regard to accessibility to information and communication technologies, Experts asked about the status of sign language in Armenia, the training and number of sign language interpreters, and measures taken to ensure access to the Internet for persons with disabilities.
How were persons with disabilities involved in decision-making processes in the country and what measures were in place to protect persons with disabilities from multiple discrimination, for example on the grounds of disability or sexual orientation and gender identity? What support system was in place for organizations of persons with disabilities, not just project-based support, but rather institutional support?
The delegation was asked about priorities in the removal of the provisions that ran counter to the principles of the Convention in accordance with the draft law on the protection of persons with disabilities; the application of international standards for accessibility of the Internet for blind persons through the use of technology; and measures taken to ensure that Government webpages were accessible to persons with disabilities.
It seemed that the draft law on persons with disabilities was prepared exclusively by the Government and its agencies – what was the involvement and participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in this process?
What was the status of the act to prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities? How was the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable accommodation protected and guaranteed?
The delegation was further asked to inform about awareness raising activities and the involvement of persons with disabilities therein, the intentions concerning the ratification of the Optional Protocol, how public procurement policy boosted accessibility both to infrastructures and through purchase of assistive devices, and which percentage of gross domestic product was being allocated for persons with disabilities and their representative organizations.
THERESIA DEGENER, Committee Chairperson, asked about efforts to include persons with disabilities in the Constitution revision process and why the propositions by persons with disabilities concerning the use of language were not accepted. What concrete policies and action plans were in place for the equalization of opportunities for women and girls with disabilities?
JONAS RUSKUS, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Armenia, said that hundreds of children with disabilities were in orphanages and Armenia was in the process of the deinstitutionalization of care homes and returning children to their families, but it seemed that this was not the case for children with disabilities. What steps were being taken to guarantee the same treatment of all children and that those with disabilities were not discriminated against in the process of deinstitutionalization.
Response by the Delegation
Responding to questions and issues raised by the Experts, the delegation said that the language in the Constitution concerning the prevention of disability described the work of the Government in relation to natural and industrial disasters which might lead to physical harm to individuals. With regard to protection from disability-based discrimination, a delegate said that the Government intended to adopt a separate law on the prohibition of discrimination by the end of this year.
On physical accessibility, Armenia had adopted in January 2017 a comprehensive programme for the social inclusion of persons with disabilities and its plan of action, which addressed accessibility of buildings and public transportation. Consequently, an accessibility assessment of existing buildings would be conducted on the basis of which a plan of action would be developed to make them accessible. There were annual targets for the increase of accessibility to public transport.
The area of child protection was undergoing wide sweeping reforms, in cooperation with several United Nations agencies, to establish alternative services for children, particularly those with special needs, which would result in deinstitutionalization. The aim was to establish a foster care system in the country and increase the capacities of families and communities. A family and children support centre had already been established to provide rehabilitation to children with disabilities, train family members taking care of children with disabilities, and provide general support to families of children with disabilities. Foster families would be trained in dealing with children with disabilities.
In 2016, the mapping of all services available to persons with disabilities had been undertaken and the map was already available online and was accessible to persons with different disabilities. The map would make the services more known and more accessible to persons with disabilities. The Government was committed to continue using information and communication technology to increase accessibility for persons with disabilities. The webpage of the Ministry of Labour was accessible to persons with visual impairments.
Civil society organizations were involved in the preparation of national legislation through a national commission, which could also establish thematic groups for more in-depth consultations. A social network with civil society organizations had been established in the framework of the creation of integrated social services, and it also covered disability issues. It operated as an open platform and any non-governmental organization could join.
The main strategy for promoting inclusive education until 2014 was to expand the number of inclusive schools, where special needs children could study alongside their peers; with the amendment of the law in 2014, Armenia had adopted a new approach and had started the transition to totally inclusive education which should be completed by 2021 when all schools in Armenia would be inclusive. The transition involved training of teachers according to a specially developed module, and workshops for teachers and parents in all schools to increase awareness about inclusive education; the next step was the closure of special schools, which were also boarding schools.
A new model of disability had been adopted based on abilities, and Armenia had already started reassessing the children with disabilities and developing individual learning programmes. At the same time, the recruitment of teachers’ assistants had started, as had the necessary equipping of schools. A particular problem was the shortage of qualified specialists – psychologists, social workers, and social pedagogues in the regions. A new model on inclusive education had been included in teachers’ training programmes throughout the country.
To date, 250 schools had been recognized as inclusive schools but not all were accessible. Last year, Armenia had started the programme of sustainable construction and rehabilitation of schools using standard design fully in line with requirements of universal design.
Questions by the Committee Experts
In the next round of questions, the delegation was asked about measures taken to make all justice buildings and places of detention accessible, and training provided to judges, lawyers and detention officers on the Convention and the rights of persons with disabilities. The law on organ and tissue donation precluded persons with disabilities from being donors – could the delegation explain the procedure that precluded consenting persons with disabilities from being an organ donor?
In which drafting stage was the general anti-discrimination law and how would it address denial of reasonable accommodation and protection from multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination?
Experts also asked about support available to persons with disabilities in need of around-the-clock care, including financial aid for hiring of personal assistants, and about the amount of funding provided for community support services for people with intellectual disabilities?
What measures were in place to ensure that persons with disabilities accused of crimes had a fair trial? How were persons with disabilities informed about the availability of legal assistance? Referring to persons with disabilities who suffered torture and ill treatment in detention, or those who suffered sexual violence and abuse in institutions, an Expert asked about mechanisms they could use to access justice and legal aid?
How were persons with disabilities supported in the realization of their right to live independently in the community, and what were concrete examples of support and assistance provided to persons with disabilities in the course of their daily life?
THERESIA DEGENER, Committee Chairperson, noted that Armenia still recognized the institution of guardianship which meant that some people were still considered incapable of making their own decisions, and who were then deprived of their legal capacity, or had it restricted. Was there an intention to put in place a supported decision-making system? Persons with disabilities were prohibited from employment in the police and the judiciary – what was being done to change this? Why was data on persons with disabilities who suffered violence not available – data should be disaggregated by age, sex and type of disability?
JONAS RUSKUS, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Armenia, expressed concern about persons with intellectual disabilities who also suffered from chronic diseases, and who were deprived of liberty and forcibly institutionalized, as denial of reasonable accommodation could put their lives at risk.
Response by the Delegation
Responding to questions asked about persons with disabilities in emergency and disaster situations, the delegation said that particular attention was being given to persons with disabilities, even though not all the issues had been defined by the law. The integrated programme for social inclusion of persons with disabilities 2017-2021 contained several measures in this regard, including training of persons with disabilities on what to do in emergency situations, inclusion of the needs of persons with disabilities in the preparedness programmes, and the communication with persons with hearing impairments. Another delegate added that the national disaster risk management programmes was in place, while different ministries, including the Ministry of Education, were developing their own disaster risk management strategies, which should account for the needs of students with disabilities.
In terms of the budget for the inclusion of persons with disabilities, a delegate explained that 29 per cent of the State budget was dedicated to social work, and of this, half was allocated to persons with disabilities, mostly to pay pensions and support institutions. The 2017-2012 social inclusion programme also contained financing measures for persons with disabilities, and it was stressed that financing for persons with disabilities was not only provided by the State budget but by foreign donors as well.
The State provided financing for printing of books in Braille and for audio (talking) books, which were placed in public libraries, while talking books were also accessible via the website of relevant ministries.
A specialized centre which provided home services and daily care and assistance to persons with disabilities existed within the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. It currently provided care and assistance to 1,200 persons with disabilities in Yerevan; plans were underway to expand the service to other regions in Armenia.
In terms of training of professionals working with children with disabilities, including social workers and foster families, a delegate explained that special manuals had been developed in this regard, and case workers had been trained in the protocol applicable in case violence against a child with disabilities was detected, including in foster families.
Armenia provided support to non-governmental organizations active in the area of disability. In 2017, State subsidies would be provided to a non-governmental organization-run centre for children with autism, as well as to several other non-governmental organizations providing community-based services to persons with disabilities.
A draft law amending the law on psychiatry had been proposed, which would protect the rights of persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities on an equal footing with other patients. Forced hospitalization would therefore be authorized for three days only, following which a final decision would be made by a commission. The patient had the right to appeal the commission’s decision to court.
Armenia was aware of discrimination of persons with disabilities in the law on organ transplants which prohibited donations of organs and tissues from a person with disabilities, and was working on aligning it with the Convention.
The draft law on social integration of persons with disabilities, which was now before Parliament, contained provisions for the protection of persons with disabilities and the measures to be taken by the Government to protect them. Armenia was also in the process of drafting an anti-discrimination law which would contain the so-called “negative protection” through the prohibition of disability-based discrimination and other behaviours.
Armenia was taking steps to change regulations in the area of legal capacity and had proposed a draft amendment which would allow for a termination of legal incapacity. Furthermore, a specialized hospital for persons with disabilities would be closed and health services to persons with disabilities would be provided through regular hospitals. There was no law prohibiting a person with disabilities from carrying out a public duty, including the duty of judge; however, only a person who did not have any obstacles preventing her or him from fully exercising the functions of a judge could become one, and such wording was open to interpretations which might be discriminatory to persons with disabilities. A law on domestic violence was being prepared which would be fully in line with the latest standards and norms in this field, and in which persons with disabilities would receive treatment on an equal footing with others.
Questions by the Committee Experts
In the final round of questions, the delegation was asked how many hours of public television programmes were available in accessible formats, the size of budgets, including in the regions, to fund the positions of classroom assistants who were key to inclusive education, availability of sign language in universities for students with hearing impairments, and accessibility to university buildings.
Armenia was holding its elections tomorrow, 31 March, and Experts wondered about physical accessibility to the polling stations and about accessibility of electoral and voting information. What specific assistance was being provided for the development of sporting activities for persons with disabilities and children with disabilities in particular?
Another Expert welcomed the commitment of Armenia to have a fully inclusive education system in place by 2021 and the decision to transform the 15 special schools into inclusive education. The Expert asked about reasonable accommodation measures in schools, in particular for hard of hearing children, the number of schools that were fully inclusive at the moment, and the plans that were in place to progressively make all schools inclusive. What early detection of disabilities were available in schools and how was forced removal of children with disabilities from mainstream schools prevented? What were the plans to make early childhood education inclusive for children with disabilities, including in regions and rural areas?
Experts reaffirmed the importance of family life and asked how children with disabilities were protected from forced institutionalization based on their disability. Could parents institutionalize their child with disability, or could a judge make a decision to institutionalize a disabled child on the basis of the principle of best interest of the child? What was the situation concerning forced abortion or forced sterilization of women and girls with disabilities?
The national HIV/AIDS strategy did not recognize persons with disabilities as vulnerable groups, and there was no targeted intervention for the reproductive and sexual health of women with disabilities. How would Armenia ensure the full inclusion of persons with disabilities in health care services, including those on HIV/AIDS?
Further on inclusive education, Experts stressed that children with disabilities needed support not only during classes, but to find their way around the school and to be included during school breaks. Inclusion must start early in life, and therefore early education institutions must be made inclusive as well – what was Armenia doing in this regard?
THERESIA DEGENER, Committee Chairperson, asked about reproductive and sexual health services available to women and girls with disabilities, and whether medical staff was trained in the provisions of the Convention and the rights of persons with disabilities. The Chairperson also asked whether Armenia would apply in its next census the Washington Group on Disability Statistics short set of questions on disability, and whether the Office of the Ombudsman of Armenia was in compliance with the Paris Principles.
JONAS RUSKUS, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Armenia, inquired about measures to improve accessibility of social protection and housing programmes for persons with disabilities, in particular for women, children and the elderly, as well as for recently deinstitutionalized persons with disabilities.
Response by the Delegation
With regard to the participation of persons with disabilities in the electoral process, the delegation said that the local authorities were responsible for ensuring that the polling stations were accessible, while the Central Electoral Commission had issued a regulation which guaranteed the right of persons with disabilities to vote with the help of another person, who must not be involved in the electoral process in any capacity. Thus, minimum conditions for the participation of persons with disabilities in the electoral process were in place, said a delegate, adding that there was room for improvements, for example by using Braille or to organize voting in medical establishments for patients who could not go to the polling stations.
The Office of the Ombudsman was a national human rights institution which was in charge of monitoring all international human rights treaties that Armenia was a party to. It had status A and complied with the highest international standards. The Office would also monitor the compliance of the Government with the law on the protection and social inclusion of persons with disabilities, once passed by Parliament.
In response to questions raised about inclusive education, the delegation said that pre-school education was quite vulnerable; it covered only about 60 per cent of the children, and the State was promoting the policy of a mandatory one year of preschool. To date, 200 new preschool facilities had been opened in areas where previously there had been none, and preschool teachers were progressively being trained in inclusive education. Preschool education was encouraged for all children, and in particular for children with special needs in order to help their socialization. To date, more than 200 schools were fully inclusive and there was one inclusive kindergarten for children with autism, which currently operated on a pilot basis.
Financing of education was problematic and Armenia had still not attained the level of three per cent of the gross domestic product. Funds were being provided for teachers’ assistants, whose numbers in schools depended on the total number of students in a given school. The financing of the general education system was per capita, and each school received a certain amount of money for each student; additional funds were provided for each child with disability, and the amount was linked to the type of disability and the individual needs of the child. The State also financed teaching materials for children with special needs. About 70 per cent of the education budget went to general education, including for the transition process towards inclusive education; this process was also supported by the United Nations Children’s Fund and other donors.
Maximum participation of children with disabilities within mainstream classes, and additional activities were organized after classes and lessons on the school premises, rather than in the specialized centres. In an inclusive school, all children learned to live together, at lesson times and at break times. There were persons with disabilities working as teachers, including in universities. In 44 vocational education institutions, the work was being done to ensure appropriate conditions and retraining of teachers, and 900 young people with special needs were able to receive short or long-term vocational training and receive certificates.
Persons with disabilities could receive medical assistance, including sexual and reproductive health services, free of charge, either through specialist or regular hospitals. Training was being provided to medical staff in regions and rural areas about the rights of persons with disabilities, especially in relation to the sexual and reproductive health of women with disabilities.
With regard to the forced institutionalization of children with disabilities, the delegation said that the rights of persons with disabilities were clearly spelled out in the draft law amending the law on psychiatric care. Forced hospitalization of children with disabilities could only happen with a court ruling.
There were 10 libraries with specialized equipment to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities, and in some cultural facilities information was provided in Braille.
Several measures were in place to support the employment of persons with disabilities, such as lump sum subsidies to employers to hire persons with disabilities, subsidies for wages to persons with disabilities, assistance to employers to provide personal assistants to persons with disabilities during work, and others. Quotas for the employment of persons with disabilities were regulated by the law on employment which set a quota of three per cent on State enterprises with more than one hundred employees and one per cent quota on private companies. Those companies that failed to comply had to transfer penalties into the special funds created for the support of employment of persons with disabilities.
Concluding Remarks
VIGEN KOCHARYAN, Deputy Minister of Justice of Armenia, thanked the Committee Experts for the constructive dialogue in which problems were identified, and which would be a strong impetus for the future work of Armenia on the full social inclusion of persons with disabilities.
JONAS RUSKUS, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Armenia, remarked that the open dialogue with the delegation of Armenia on the progress and challenges in the implementation of the Convention had identified issues which were substantial for persons with disabilities. The rights of persons with disabilities were not privileges, the country Rapporteur stressed. The Committee’s concluding observations would clearly set the priorities for the implementation of the Convention, and should be implemented regardless of lack of resources and financial constraints – those must not be an excuse for the continuation of discrimination. Armenia should amend the draft law on the protection and social inclusion of persons with disabilities and bring it line with the Convention and the Committee’s General Comments.
THERESIA DEGENER, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the rich discussion and hoped that the Committee’s concluding observations would help Armenia to further implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the country.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CRPD17/008E