HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS ANNUAL INTERACTIVE DEBATE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held its annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities, focusing on the structure and role of national mechanisms in the implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in an opening statement, commended the ever-increasing number of ratifications of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and said that they already knew that ratification alone would not make a tangible change in the life of people. What needed to happen was for States to implement the treaty at the national level through the adoption of all relevant legislative, judicial, administrative and educational measures. The question was what could lead this change and what mechanisms could trigger and sustain the implementation of the Convention at the domestic level.

Also in an opening statement, Andrej Logar, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, said the annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities would this year focus on the structure and role of national mechanisms in the implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The panellists were Don MacKay, former Ambassador of New Zealand to the United Nations in Geneva; Mohammed Al-Tarawneh, Expert Member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission on Social Development; Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson of the International Coordinating Committee for National Human Rights Institutions and Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission; and Regina Atalla, President of the Red Latinoamericana de Organizaciones no Gubernamentales de Personas con Discapacidad y sus Familias, and member of the International Disability Alliance.

Don McKay, former Ambassador of New Zealand to the United Nations Office in Geneva, said persons with disabilities had not been able to realize their human rights under generic treaties. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had described that as the invisibility of persons with disabilities. There had to be a strong mechanism to ensure that Governments retained their focus on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities after they had ratified it.

Mohammed Al-Tarawneh, Expert Member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said central to the discussions were two intrinsically connected questions. The first one was the implementation mechanisms provided under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the second was the monitoring mechanisms. The Convention built upon two implementation mechanisms, both at the national and international levels.

Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission on Social Development, said that the discussion would use the South African model as an example of focal points, coordination, monitoring and the participation of persons with disabilities. The South African focal point – the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons - was currently in the Presidency and had its own budget and staff. Monitoring of the Convention was the role of the South African Human Rights Commission, an independent and constitutional body accountable to parliament and not government.

Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson of the International Coordinating Committee for National Human Rights Institutions and Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said Article 33 of the Convention made an explicit mention of national human rights institutions. One of the most important requirements was the separation between States and national human rights institutions. National institutions had specific expertise in promoting and protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities. They were ideally suited to fulfil the mandate described in Section 33.2 of the Convention.

Regina Atalla, President of the Red Latinoamericana de Organizaciones no Gubernamentales de Personas con Discapacidad y sus Familias, and member of the International Disability Alliance, said the International Disability Alliance played a leading role in the coordination of all global, regional and national organizations of persons with disabilities. While in most countries there existed disability focal points and coordination mechanisms, the Alliance considered that their functioning, mandate and composition would need to be significantly revised to comply with the Convention.

In the discussion, speakers said signature and ratification of the Convention were only a step along a path towards full implementation; the challenge was to ensure implementation of the Convention. Countries should establish a constitutional basis to make it possible to have a consistent policy on disability in all areas of Government. There would have to be a way for people with disabilities to take part in public debates on the matter. Developing countries could establish mechanisms as could developed countries, but they were usually confronted by constraints of a financial nature - it was therefore necessary to provide for technical and financial assistance mechanisms for countries that needed it in the framework of implementing the Convention.

The priority in moving forward should be to start processes of implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities through existing legal structures, speakers said. It also needed to be kept in mind that the majority of the countries had not yet established national human rights institutions in line with the Paris principles. Since a large number of countries had signed the Convention, efforts should be guided towards strengthening the capacities of the interested Governments to help streamline their legislative, policy and implementation frameworks, which would ensure wider ratification and effective implementation of the Convention. In situations of natural disasters the rights of persons with disabilities should be given appropriate attention, and persons with disabilities should be integrated in the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals.

National delegations also outlined in detail national policies to ensure the implementation of the Convention.

Speaking in the discussion were New Zealand, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Canada, Cuba, the United States, Turkey, the Republic of Korea, Jordan, Burkina Faso, Spain on behalf of the European Union, Belgium, Russian Federation, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Austria, Slovenia, Israel, Qatar, Australia, Hungary, Indonesia, Brazil, Iran, United Kingdom, Thailand, Algeria, Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Slovakia, Sudan, Sweden, Philippines, Ukraine, China, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru, Costa Rica and Kenya.

The United Nations Children’s Fund and the Advisory Council on Human Rights of Morocco also took the floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: European Disability Forum, Human Rights Watch, Asia Pacific Forum, European Group of National Human rights Institutions and World Federation of the Deaf.
When the Council next meets on Monday, 8 March at 10 a.m., it will start interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on human rights and countering terrorism and the Special Rapporteur on torture.

Opening Statements

ANDREJ LOGAR, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council , introducing the annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities, said in its resolution 10/7 entitled “human rights of persons with disabilities: national frameworks for the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities”, the Council decided to focus its interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities at its thirteenth session on the structure and role of national mechanisms in the implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. The interactive debate aimed at enhancing the understanding of the rationale and content of article 33 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on national implementation and monitoring. It should also explore good practices in the implementation of such articles, identify legal and other measures required, and reflect on potential obstacles to effective implementation at national level. Finally, it should reflect on the role of civil society in the functioning of such mechanisms, and identify lessons that could assist national implementation.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that for the first time the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was providing interpretation into international sign language and real time captioning. All sessions of the Council and all United Nations facilities and events should be accessible to all. The High Commissioner commended the ever-increasing number of ratifications of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and said that they already knew that ratification alone would not make a tangible change in the life of people. What needed to happen was for States to implement the treaty at the national level through the adoption of all relevant legislative, judicial, administrative and educational measures. The question was what could lead this change and what mechanisms could trigger and sustain the implementation of the Convention at the domestic level.

Article 33 of the Convention anticipated the challenges in implementing human rights norms and explicitly required States to set up institutional preconditions necessary to accompany the application of the Convention at the national level. It further required States to put in place a framework to protect, promote and monitor the implementation of the Convention. The Convention was the first human rights treaty to include a specific article detailing the form and functions in charge of implementation and monitoring at the national level. Article 11 of the Convention provided that States Parties should take all necessary measures to ensure protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risks, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters. The plight of victims of the earthquake in Haiti had highlighted the urgent need to tackle the circumstances of people with disabilities who were caught in situations of extreme hardship. Ms. Pillay called on all stakeholders engaged in the emergency response, the Haitian Government and the international community, to take all measures to ensure protection and safety of persons with disabilities.

Lessons learned from other disasters had shown that persons with disabilities suffered the most, but their situation was often overlooked and neglected in relief and humanitarian responses. In such circumstances the designation of focal points would help to ensure that issues of persons with disabilities were identified and addressed. As the leading intergovernmental human rights institution, the Human Rights Council was perfectly positioned and expected to advance the purposes and effects of the Convention.

Statements by Panellists

DON McKAY, former Ambassador of New Zealand to the United Nations Office in Geneva, said the thematic study had been invaluable in informing this debate. Monitoring at the national and international level went to the heart of the Convention on Persons with Disabilities. There were historical reasons that had led to that Convention. Persons with disabilities had not been able to realize their human rights under generic treaties. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had described that as the invisibility of persons with disabilities. There had to be a strong mechanism to ensure that Governments retained their focus on the Convention after they had ratified it. Secondly, the umbrella of a paradigm shift had dramatically changed the way people with disabilities interacted with society. That required a very strong and clear domestic monitoring system to ensure that Governments remained mindful of that change in terms of how people with disabilities interacted with other people. Thirdly, civil society had a unique role to play in creating that convention in ways that they had not done so with previous conventions. As part of that process of interaction with the coordination segment, they needed to be able to contribute regarding domestic implementation. The two-tier monitoring system was made up of one layer at the international treaty body level and another layer at the national level, which was relatively unique. There had been some precedent in the Optional Protocol but there were some nuances and differences between them. There was clearly, jurisprudence, whereby various treaty monitoring bodies suggested domestic monitoring even under such conventions. There was a clear requirement for civil society and people with disabilities to be fully involved in the monitoring process. Finally, what had been implicit and highlighted was the need for sufficient resources to be provided for domestic monitoring mechanisms.

MOHAMMED AL-TARAWNEH, Expert Member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said central to the discussions were two intrinsically connected questions. The first one was the implementation mechanisms provided under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the second was the monitoring mechanisms. The Convention built upon two implementation mechanisms, both at the national and international levels. At the latter level, the Convention included practical guidance on how it should be implemented through the work of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to provide regular advice to States on their reports, as well as an inquiry procedure, important implementing tools, and the assistance of relevant United Nations agencies. At the national level, through its direct text, the Convention provided practical guidance as to how it should be implemented. In this connection, the practice of regular submission of reports to the Committee was also an implementing tool. The Convention clearly indicated that certain rights needed and could be implemented immediately (civil and political rights), whereas for some others (economic, social and cultural rights), States were allowed to implement them progressively. The Convention also indicated that many rights were inter-dependent.

Whereas implementation could be assured both by policies and institutions, monitoring was essentially the work of institutions. At the national level, it was clear that with the exception of the focal point on implementation under article 33, essentially civil society would play a major role in both implementing and monitoring the Convention. With regard to the monitoring role of the national human rights institutions, a lot of additional questions arose, such as the composition of such institutions, their independence, and the possibility of their direct contacts with the Committee. At the international level, the leading role in monitoring was accorded to the Committee, and additionally to the Conference of States Parties. Again, it was clear that the Committee would not be able to fulfil its monitoring role without a close cooperation with the relevant national institutions. These were all questions which the Committee hoped the distinguished participants to the panel discussion would contribute to, and which had an impact on the many opportunities for cooperation between the Committee and national institutions.

SHUAIB CHALKLEN, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission on Social Development, said that the discussion would use the South African model as an example of focal points, coordination, monitoring and the participation of persons with disabilities. The South African focal point – the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons - was currently in the Presidency and had its own budget and staff. It was responsible for coordination and a coordinating committee was established, the National Coordinating Committee on Disability, which consisted of officials from all the national government departments. The National Coordinating Committee on Disability met every three months to assess progress, discuss policy matters, budgets and blockages to implementation. The Office on the Status of Persons with Disabilities was not responsible for implementation. Its primary function was coordination, monitoring and advice to government departments. Implementation occurred primarily at the provincial and local government level.

Monitoring of the Convention was the role of the South African Human Rights Commission, an independent and constitutional body accountable to parliament and not government. It had powers to investigate violations of rights and to take steps and recommend redress, conduct research and educate public on human rights. Civil society through the South African Disability Alliance met regularly with the Government. Several key factors would influence the success of the institutional arrangements for Article 33: the institutional location of the focal point and coordinating mechanism, the capacity of focal points to influence budget allocation, and the strength and commitment of organizations of persons with disabilities. If the relationship between the ruling party and the organizations of disabled people were too strong, this might negatively influence their capacity to play their lobbying role.

JENNIFER LYNCH, Chairperson of the International Coordinating Committee for National Human Rights Institutions and Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was an integral partner in advancing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The International Coordinating Committee also acknowledged the value of the Council’s contribution to the right of such persons. It would discuss the innovative approach to implementing and monitoring that Convention as articulated in Article 33. The Article made an explicit mention of national human rights institutions. One of the most important requirements was the separation between States and national human rights institutions. Today 65 such institutions had earned “A” accreditation status. National institutions had specific expertise in promoting and protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities. They also dealt with a broad range of issues such as gender discrimination and racism. They served as a bridge between civil society and States, representing the interests of persons with disabilities. As the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report emphasized, many such bodies had undertaken additional activities such as human rights education and coordination with government institutions. With its support, they could continue to make contributions in all areas of human rights. They were ideally suited to fulfil the mandate described in Section 33.2 of the Convention.

REGINA ATALLA, Latin American Network of Non-Governmental Organizations of Persons with Disabilities and their Families (RIADIS), said one of the most striking characteristics of the negotiation process of the Convention was the active participation of organizations of persons with disabilities. The International Disability Alliance played a leading role in the coordination of all global, regional and national organizations of persons with disabilities. At this stage, all of the Governmental participants accepted the fact that the Convention had to be negotiated with the active participation of the organizations of those persons whose rights the Convention sought to protect and promote. Their engaged and coordinated input to the negotiation process was reflected in the paradigm shift this Convention enshrined, and reflected the expertise of persons with disabilities. This active participation and involvement of persons with disabilities through their representative organizations needed to be respected by Governments in all stages of implementation and monitoring of the Convention at the national level.

While in most countries there existed disability focal points and coordination mechanisms, the Alliance considered that their functioning, mandate and composition would need to be significantly revised to comply with the Convention. Moreover, the location of these focal points needed to be changed. The way in which representative organizations of persons with disabilities interacted with focal points and formed part of the coordination mechanisms needed to be revised in close coordination with these organizations. Probably the most relevant, as well as challenging, feature of Article 33 related to the establishment of an independent national monitoring framework in accordance with the Paris principles. It would also be a role of the Committee to ensure that the decisions made by States Parties fully complied with Article 33. The monitoring body should have persons with disabilities as staff members and as members of the relevant governing body. The work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the field of disability was appreciated, as it ensured a meaningful involvement of persons with disabilities.

Discussion

DELL HIGGIE (New Zealand) welcomed the convening of today’s panel and said that the extraordinary momentum of support for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had continued. New Zealand hoped for universal acceptance of the Convention before much longer. Signature and ratification were only a step along a path towards full implementation; the challenge now was to ensure implementation of the Convention. Article 33 with its novel provision on national implementation provided a code for States to follow in partnership with independent mechanisms, including the full involvement of persons with disabilities. The protection, promotion and monitoring of the implementation required the involvement of national mechanisms established in line with the Paris principles. The Human Rights Council had an important role in promoting the enjoyment by persons with disabilities of their human rights and New Zealand continued to fully support the Council’s work in this area.

CARLOS RIOS ESPINOSA (Mexico) said concerning implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, one should establish a constitutional basis to make it possible to have a consistent policy on disability in all areas of government. There would have to be a way for people with disabilities to take part in public debates on the matter. On monitoring, Mexico had a huge arsenal for the participation of civil society such as consultative counsels. There were precedents for public meetings, which called on people with disabilities to take part in an ombudsman in Mexico City. Those reports would be vital for recommendations to the Government, on which policies needed to be put in place to uphold the rights of people with disabilities.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said Morocco had a Ministry which coordinated Governmental policies in the area of integrating persons with disabilities. The Ministry acted as an advocate and strengthened capacity to better integrate the needs of persons with disabilities in planning, programming, implementation and evaluating all programmes. The Ministry had also proposed a Bill on strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities, on the basis of an approach founded on social participation and human rights. A National Action Plan for the integration of persons with disabilities for the upcoming decade was being finalised, and would be a framework helping to mobilise action in this area. Moroccan civil society was also actively engaged in the field in specific activities aimed at promoting the rights of this vulnerable category. Developed countries could establish mechanisms as could developed countries, but they were usually confronted by constraints of a financial nature. It was therefore necessary to provide for technical and financial assistance mechanisms for countries that needed it in the framework of implementing the Convention.

ZAHOOR AHMED (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached great importance to the rights of persons with disabilities. Islamic teachings provided clear guidance to remain vigilant to the needs of this specific group of people. The priority in moving forward should be to start processes of implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities through existing legal structures. It also needed to be kept in mind that the majority of the countries had not yet established national human rights institutions in line with the Paris principles. Since a large number of countries had signed the Convention, efforts should be guided towards strengthening the capacities of the interested Governments to help streamline their legislative, policy and implementation frameworks, which would ensure wider ratification and effective implementation of the Convention.

ALISON LECLAIRE (Canada) said Canada was also pleased to see Jennifer Lynch among the panellists. Canada thanked the Office of the High Commissioner and the Human Rights Council for its study on Article 33. Canada had been among the first countries to sign the Convention. It had also tabled the Convention in parliament and was taking steps towards ratification. Federal, provincial and territorial bodies would be responsible for implementation in the post-ratification phase. Canada would be grateful for details on best practices of implementation of Article 33. It wanted further perspectives on best practices to fully include persons with disabilities in the monitoring process.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba) said Cuba attached great importance to the rights of persons with disabilities, and had begun to draft its report on the implementation of the provisions of the Convention. There were numerous programmes underway in Cuba, including national programmes aiming to create opportunities and possibilities with no one being ruled out for any reason. Cuba also aided other countries in the world, sending medical staff and geneticists to carry out research on persons with disabilities and providing assistance to them and their families, and there were other examples of international solidarity and cooperation. There were many tangible examples. Political will was essential. The rights of persons with disabilities should be considered in all circumstances.

JOHN C. MARIZ (United States) said the United States was proud to have signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. While it had not yet ratified the Convention, and thus not yet designated its national monitoring mechanism under Article 33 of the Convention, the Government recognised that designating a such, and giving it sufficient capacity and enforcement authority to oversee its country’s full implementation of its disabilities convention obligations was important. Moreover, some elements of the Federal Government of the United States had already participated in oversight and enforcement of domestic disability rights legislation, and the Department of Justice had authority to initiate litigation against employers to ensure compliance with disability non-discrimination law.

ELA GORKEM (Turkey) thanked all panellists and experts who gave clear presentations on the challenges in the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Turkey hoped for universal ratification of the Convention. Turkey had signed and ratified it and was very involved in the process. It was committed to providing effective support to disabled people and to allowing them access to health and education. It also actively took part in the Council of Europe’s work on an action plan for disabled people. Turkey wanted more information on measures taken by the Council on people with disabilities within regional organizations.

WIE-YOUNG HA (Republic of Korea) said the Government of the Republic of Korea had adopted various administrative and legislative measures to realise the spirit of the Convention. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs had been designated as an overall focal point with both mandates to ensure full implementation of the Convention. One of its mandates was to carry out a five-year plan for persons with disabilities from 2008 to 2012, a comprehensive set of policies involving ministries with a view to full participation and inclusion in society for persons with disabilities. Second, the antidiscrimination against and remedies for persons with disabilities Act was enforced in 2008 and had resulted in a multilayered monitoring mechanism. National human rights policies were reviewed on a regular basis. There was a need to develop indicators to assess the progress of the implementation of the Convention.

SHEHAB A. MADI (Jordan) said this meeting spoke volumes on the increasing interest dedicated to the plight of persons with disabilities. Jordan for its part also paid particular attention to persons with disabilities, as highlighted, among other facts, by its active participation in the meetings that had led to the creation of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Jordan had also put in place and updated national legislation with regard to persons with disabilities, and ensured that that legislation was in line with the Convention. It also had a Council that dealt with disability issues as well as designed and followed-up on measures taken in that regard. The Council could rest assured of Jordan’s continued interest and commitment to the issue of persons with disabilities.

CLARISSA MERINDOL OUOBA (Burkina Faso) said Burkina Faso welcomed the convening of this debate. Studies of Article 33 had given Burkina Faso an opportunity to formulate its views. Disabled persons were often the poorest and the most vulnerable to poverty because they were left largely ignored. Nonetheless, they had a great ability to develop skills and aptitudes. Burkina Faso had ratified the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities in 2008. Given the country’s incomplete legislation, the Ministry charged with addressing the matter had drawn up a report on the legal and institutional rights of the disabled. Its publication aimed to provide food for thought on the protection and promotion of rights of persons with disabilities. It knew that it had to mobilize the international community. Burkina Faso counted on the support of all partner States to ensure that it made the rights of such people a reality.

LORETTA CARRILLO (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said in 2000 the European Union had adopted legislation aimed at combating direct and indirect discrimination in the workplace on grounds of disability. The European Union therefore had great interest and competence in the elaboration of the Convention, a mixed agreement whose provisions fell partly under the competence of the Member States, and partly under the competence of the European Union. The Convention had a double effect for the European Union as a regional integration organization. Panellists should elaborate on the coordination between the focal points within Governments, required by the first paragraph of Article 33, and the independent monitoring mechanisms designated under the second paragraph of the Article.

KIM VAN AKEN (Belgium) said Belgium had sent, on 2 July 2009, the ratification instrument of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the United Nations in New York, and the Convention would thus enter into force on 1 August 2009 for Belgium. The Government would also file its first report before the Committee on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 1 August 2011. While as of now Belgium did not have a national human rights institution, the Government had explored various possibilities in order to establish an independent mechanism that would suffice to the criteria set out in the Paris principles. Belgium would also organize an important conference that was dedicated to the implementation of Article 33 of the Convention in the second semester of 2010.

ALEX AKZHIGITOV (Russian Federation) said there were almost 13 million disabled persons living in Russia today. A key governmental component was the Council on Disabled Affairs, an agency coordinating body. The Russian Federation had signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008. In the thematic study on mechanisms to implement the rights of persons with disabilities, there was a separate institution in line with the Paris principles to deal them. It deserved more attention in terms of assessing its positive and negative aspects. Russia recently set up an ombudsman for children’s rights. In the long run it would also set one up for disabled people. It was important not to rush and not to impose a one size fits all approach.

RICHARD LUKUNDA (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo gave primacy to the promotion and protection of human rights of persons with disabilities and to bring about their rights. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was in favour of ratifying the Convention and the Bill was already in front of the national parliament. Attention would be paid to the implementation of Article 33 as soon as the Convention was ratified. Many national institutions existed and worked in the area of protection of persons with disabilities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Ministries of health, education and gender were developing programmes for the promotion of persons with disabilities. Civil society worked with the Government in promoting the rights of persons with disabilities. The Democratic Republic of the Congo had seen a significant increase in number of persons with disabilities due to a number of wars and it appealed for increased contributions from the international community to support the national efforts.

EVA SCHOFFER (Austria) said for Austria the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities constituted a clear national priority. Austria had ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and had established a mechanism for its implementation, as well as an independent monitoring committee. This body would be complemented by mechanisms at the provincial level. The individual complaints received so far focused mainly on issues of equality in the labour market, measures to ensure independent living, particularly personal assistance, the right to family life, and questions concerning early childhood interventions. Austria was convinced that, with the measures it had taken, the obligations under article 33 of the Convention concerning national implementation and monitoring were fully met. Austria was committed to continuously promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the Convention and improve its mechanisms.

ANJA MARIJA CIRAJ (Slovenia) said that the rights of persons with disabilities were not guaranteed in a single umbrella act in Slovenia’s legislation but were rather integrated into various laws. Slovenia had ratified in 2008 the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol, both of which had become a part of Slovenia’s national law and could be applied directly. The Government also intended to forward the proposal for the Equalisation of Opportunities Act to the National Assembly for adoption in March this year. That Act would introduce a new council for persons with disabilities, an independent and tripartite body which would be established by representatives of disability organizations.

WALID ABU-HAYA (Israel) said Israel remained committed to the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Under the new law in Israel, which had a human rights based paradigm shift, public places had to be made accessible to all disabled people. It also supplemented chapters on discrimination in work and in public. It was also possible to file civil claims on accessibility. Violations of the terms of accessibility were a crime punishable by fines. Israel reiterated its position that cooperating with non-governmental organizations was essential to ensuring the promotion of the rights of people with disabilities.

The Representative of UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) urged all United Nations Member States to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which empowered children and adults with disabilities as rights-holders in their families, schools and communities. The ratification was not enough, the most important step in the promotion, protection and fulfilment of the rights of children with disabilities was the actual implementation. UNICEF supported the realization of the rights of children with disabilities and worked particularly to facilitate the participation of persons with disabilities in planning processes and actions at all levels. UNICEF supported States in reviewing their legislation in light of the provisions of the Convention, improving the availability of data on the situation of children with disabilities. UNICEF was also focused on the rights of children with disabilities in emergency contexts by assisting victims of landmines and other explosives in around 25 countries.

STEFAN TROMEL, of European Disability Forum, said the European Disability Forum greatly appreciated that this session had been made available to persons with disabilities, which was a step in the right direction since persons with disabilities wished to be actively engaged in discussions concerning their rights. It was also important that States ensured appropriate communication with the High Commissioner on key issues relating to persons with disabilities. The European Disability Forum asked the panel what advice, in its view, should be given to countries that did not have a national human rights institution, or where those were not adequately prepared to monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

SHEHEREZADE KARA, of Human Rights Watch, commended the Council for holding this dialogue on the rights of persons with disabilities. The debate on national mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was timely and useful. The importance of the monitoring mechanism could not be overstressed. Independence was an important element. Monitoring should be understood as distinct from implementation to ensure proper accountability. The setting up of a monitoring mechanism was critical to ensuring that the voice of the disabled was heard. All members should receive sufficient training. Disability rights should be integrated into all government processes and structures. Human Rights Watch supported the call by the International Disability Alliance for States to include persons with disabilities and their organizations in all aspects of implementation and monitoring.

Responding Remarks by Panellists

DON MCKAY, Former Ambassador of New Zealand to the United Nations in Geneva, with regard to the nature of the national monitoring framework, said there was a number of ways to do this in terms of Article 33. They were not in a situation where one size fitted all, and there was leeway in how one went about in choosing the mechanisms. Still, the central provisions of Article 33 must be met – the independence and the involvement of the civil society. Governments would have to report to the Committee with regards to the implementation of this Article. Several colleagues referred to the need for resources to implement Article 33 and this was a valid point. The larger issue was resources for the protection of rights of persons with disabilities. Their rights did not appear in Millennium Development Goals and during the review of the Goals it was important that the Council sent the message that persons with disabilities should be included in those objectives.

JENNIFER LYNCH, Chairperson of the International Coordinating Committee for National Human Rights Institutions and Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, responding to several questions that had been asked, said that the inexperience of national human rights institutions was often visible in their reporting to regular key bodies and organs, such as Parliament; in the coordination of various stakeholders; and in their promotional role. On the question of how the participation of persons with disabilities in discussions concerning them could be ensured, Ms. Lynch said one option was to include them as members of the commission, as had for example been done in Canada in 2008. There was also a need that action was not only taken once there was a problem but that it was already taken in the prevention phase. In that process persons with disabilities could also be involved with great benefit, as was also the case for the decision-making processes. Responding to the question on focal points and coordinating mechanisms, Ms. Lynch said these were two separate but interrelated points.

REGINA ATALLA, of Latin American Network of Non-Governmental Organizations of Persons with Disabilities and their Families (RIADIS), highlighted cross cutting issues, saying that 80 per cent of disabled children in Latin America did not attend school. That alone impeded reaching the Millennium Development Goals. There were thus cross cutting issues. Different sectors had to be involved to address the issue. They had to think about health. Once at school, children with disabilities needed to ensure physical access to them. The organization did provide assistance to families, but the rate of children excluded from schools was very high. Eighty per cent of people with disabilities lived in poverty or extreme poverty.

Discussion

KHALID FAHAD AL-HAJRI (Qatar) welcomed the report about the thematic study for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Qatar valued the consultative process that had been undertaken with Governments and civil society organizations. The positive interaction of the State of Qatar with the international mechanisms of human rights stemmed from the principles stipulated in the constitution. This respect and engagement had led to the State of Qatar presenting reports to the monitoring mechanisms. Qatar had signed the Convention in 2007 and ratified it in 2008. Qatar wished to highlight the important role of the Supreme Council for Family affairs, especially in regards to the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. Qatar expressed its appreciation for the efforts of the High Commissioner in the promotion and protection of human rights of persons with disabilities and efforts undertaken to prepare the thematic study.

ROBYN HODGKIN (Australia) said Australia was particularly interested in exploring good practices in the implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The first element of the implementation of the Convention was the designation of one or more focal points within the Government to ensure general oversight and the promotion of the Convention. Another aspect was the designation of a coordination mechanism within the Government to facilitate related action in different sectors and at different levels. In close relation to implementation was the concept of independent monitoring and the continuous involvement of civil society in implementing and monitoring the Convention. Australia would be interested to hear from the panel some views on engagement issues and mechanisms within civil society. Australia considered that there was always room to improve and further strengthen legislative and police frameworks in line with the obligations under the Convention.

ZOLTAN PAPP (Hungary) said Hungary had shown its commitment to protecting the rights of persons with disabilities by becoming the first country that had ratified both the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well as the Optional Protocol. The Government was convinced that national mechanisms to implement and monitor the Convention would be instrumental in fully realising the rights enshrined in the Convention. Hungary had also introduced the concept of supported decision-making into its Civil Code through a comprehensive legal revision. While the adoption of that new legislation was an important effort in the right direction, Hungary recognised that additional efforts were required for its effective implementation.

PRIMANTO HENDRASMORO (Indonesia) said the Constitution of Indonesia stipulated respect and protection of the rights of the disabled, including children with disabilities. Relevant national laws had been enacted to ensure social protection, education, employment and independent living for all citizens. Indonesia signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006 and was fully committed to the protection of the rights of disabled persons. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was expected to take place at the earliest opportunity. The Convention had been an important turning point for those with disabilities and had been invaluable in mitigating negative stereotypes and changing attitudes towards disabled in societies around the world. The position and potential of the disabled community worldwide had been overlooked in the past and progress on this issue was long overdue. At present, Indonesia’s current approaches and policies to persons with disabilities remained more charity-based. To bring about change, the Government’s initiatives on disability issues were complemented by dynamic civil societies groups, non-governmental organizations and the vibrant Indonesian media. As a result, the traditional charity-based approach was shifting towards a human rights and development oriented one.

ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil) said according to the World Health Organization, 10 per cent of the world's population faced the challenge of living with disabilities. The growing number of ratifications of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities may be celebrated, but the figures highlighted the great challenge still ahead in order to fully implement the rights enshrined in this important international instrument. In this sense, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council had a key role to play in monitoring the situation on the ground together with national mechanisms. Brazil was undertaking all efforts to guarantee the full enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities, in the national, regional, and international fora. Brazil was dedicated to combat discrimination in all aspects, and would be presenting a draft resolution focused on a world of sports free from racism and discrimination. This annual interactive debate contributed to mainstreaming the issue in the Council, but was also a key opportunity to share best practices and give a strong message of commitment.

MOJTABA ALIBABACI (Iran) said that despite being entitled to protection under many human rights treaties through the cross-cutting principle of equality and non-discrimination, persons with disabilities had remained invisible in the human rights system and absent from the human rights discourse. The entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities therefore filled an important protection gap in international human rights law. As the number of disabled Iranians, many of whom had been injured during the eight years of war, exceeded a million, acceding to the Convention was very important for Iran although it also had other significant legislation in that regard. Iran encouraged all States to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and called upon them to foster their implementation and monitoring mechanisms with a view to better implement the Convention both at the national and at the international level.

CHRISTOPHER LOMAX (United Kingdom) said the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had been developed in recognition of the need for a specific international human right treaty to address the needs of disabled people. With it in place, it was now important that the international community used it to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities in practice. Within the Government of the United Kingdom, the focal point for the implementation of the Convention was the Office for Disability Issues, which worked closely with Ministries, devolved administration and already coordinated work on the United Kingdom’s vision of “equality for disabled people by 2025”. There were also four equality and human rights commissions which provided the independent element of the framework to promote, protect and monitor implementation. The United Kingdom considered that the active involvement of civil society and particularly of disabled people were crucial to the Convention’s implementation and monitoring, and the development of disability policy more generally. Implementation of the Convention presented all States with a variety of challenges and the United Kingdom asked the panel how could awareness of the Convention be raised among persons with disabilities and the society in general and how could harder-to-reach individuals be brought into the process, so their views were known and their needs met.

VIJAVAT ISARABHAKDI (Thailand) said Thailand was pleased to see the continuing increase in the number of States Parties to the Convention, which demonstrated the commitment of States to further protect and promote the rights of persons with disabilities. The common challenge for all was to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention in order to make a real difference to the lives of the people on the ground. At the national level, Thailand had developed various domestic laws and policies to protect and promote the rights of persons with disabilities in accordance with the Convention. Thailand believed that in many cases, effective implementation of the Convention was closely linked to the availability of resources and the capacity of the State in question - therefore Thailand wished to stress the importance of international cooperation in supporting State efforts to implement the Convention, in line with Article 32 of the Convention.

BOUALEM CHEBIHI (Algeria) said Algeria welcomed the holding of this discussion. The debate would undoubtedly allow countries to become familiar with good practices and to promote them for the benefit of persons with disabilities. Algeria attached importance to promoting the rights of persons with disabilities, as was highlighted by numerous facts. Those included the ratification of the Convention; the adoption of a national law on persons with disabilities in 2002; various measures to improve their situation, including such to facilitate their access to public buildings through ramps; assistance provided to the elderly; and that 14 March of every year was commemorated as the national day of the disabled. The President of Algeria had further established a prize for Arab leaders active in the field of rights of persons with disabilities and the Government was aware of the important role that civil society representatives could play. Algeria was considering updating its 2002 law on persons with disabilities and would further strive to ensure the welfare of these persons.

ALVARO ENRIQUE AYALA MELENDEZ (Colombia), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, thanked the panellists and said that the countries of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries belonged to the region with the highest number of ratifications of the Convention. Colombia agreed with the panellists when they said that the establishment of national mechanisms in conformity with the Article 33 was indispensable for the implementation and monitoring of the treaty. The Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries had adopted measures to press with the implementation of Article 33 and those to ensure promotion, protection and monitoring of the implementation. Given the broad cross-cutting nature of the Convention, the Group would welcome the opinion of the panellists on which government institution participation would be most important. The Group asked for the thoughts of the panellists about the role of civil society.

BRANISLAV LYSAK (Slovakia) said in February 2010, the Government of Slovakia had approved the proposal for ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol. The process of ratification should be concluded by the end of the year. Discussions had been held about the appointment, or, if necessary, establishment of a national focal point and an independent monitoring mechanism. Slovakia was therefore grateful for the possibility to better understand the rationale and contents of Article 33 of the Convention, and would try to make utmost use of the information received. Slovakia wished for the advice of the panellists on how to pre-empt the lack of effectiveness. Also, an assessment of the practical results achieved so far and problems faced by the existing national monitoring and implementation mechanisms would be useful, as would be some recommendations concerning the involvement of these mechanisms in awareness-raising campaigns.

HAMZA AHMED (Sudan), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the Arab Group expressed its support for the recommendations and results of the recent study as well as the efforts undertaken to implement them. The Arab Group believed in the importance of rehabilitating persons with disabilities, based on the principal idea that these people enjoyed the same rights as other people. The Government of Sudan had made the implementation of the principles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities one of its top priorities. The significant number of countries that had signed the Convention in such a short time was proof of the importance of the rights of persons with disabilities.

AMMA UGGLA (Sweden) said that the full enjoyment of human rights by men, women and children with disabilities on an equal basis with others was of great concern to Sweden. An effective implementation and monitoring of the Convention was important for compliance with the Convention and Sweden would continue to work towards its full implementation. Persons with disabilities needed to take part in the monitoring process and in any other decision-making processes that concerned them. Sweden firmly believed that this undertaking should be reflected in the processes of implementing and monitoring the Convention. Sweden asked the panel to elaborate how such participation was best obtained and to share some good examples. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was the first treaty that contained specific requirements on its national implementation and monitoring and Sweden asked the panel to elaborate on the impact that the incorporation of specific requirements had had on national realization of the Convention so far.

HENDRIK GARCIA (Philippines) said in fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention, the Philippines had updated its Department for Disability Affairs. The panellists were asked for ways and means of involving civil society in monitoring, and also for best practices in how to carry out implementation and monitoring at the local level. The National Council in the Philippines had produced some information campaigns on promoting the rights of persons with disabilities, and these had been very effective for outreach to the wider public. The importance of international cooperation in ensuring implementation of the Convention with focus on capacity building and technology transfer for developing countries could not be ignored. In situations of natural disasters the rights of persons with disabilities should be given appropriate attention, and persons with disabilities should be integrated in the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals.

ANTONINA SHLIAKOTINA (Ukraine) said Ukraine had ratified the Convention and its Optional Protocol in December 2009. For Ukraine, the Convention would therefore come into force in March 2010. Ukraine’s accession to this international legal instrument proved the country’s advancement in its aim to ensure equal rights and opportunities for disabled persons. Achieving better standards regarding the provision of social care to disabled persons was among the priorities of the social policy of Ukraine and special legislative measures had been taken to ensure non-discrimination as well as wide participation of this category of people in public life. Ukraine was eager to contribute to an efficient international cooperation that aimed at creating a more competitive, dynamic as well as economic and social-cohesion based integration for all.

XANG XIAOMING (China) said the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities covered many faucets of the needs of persons with disabilities. China had set up a committee for coordination of the implementation of the Convention, which was headed by a Vice Minister. China’s laws protecting the rights of persons with disabilities contained all major provisions of the Convention. The National Congress was responsible for the supervision, monitoring and implementation of the relevant laws and regulations for the rights of persons with disabilities. Construction of bylaws would enhance the mutual understanding that would be of high significance for the perfect mechanism for the implementation and monitoring of the Convention.

LJUBICA PERIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said Bosnia and Herzegovina recently became a member of the family of countries that had ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Along with the existing legal mechanisms and adopted policies and strategies for persons with disabilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Convention would ensure in the future the relevant indicators for the State level on the existing problems of this category that had been, up to now, planned and provided by the lower levels. In order to promote the rights of persons with disabilities based on human rights, the competent authorities had initiated activities to establish a Council for Persons with Disabilities. Bosnia and Herzegovina was ready to meet the obligations coming from the ratification of this Convention, and, in that sense, to work on the establishment of adequate implementation and monitoring structures, which would strengthen the implementation of the Convention at the national level. The ratification of the Convention reflected the commitments of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enhance the efforts for protection and promotion of human rights in all its segments.

CARLOS SIBILLE (Peru) said the thematic study developed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had clearly and precisely set up the elements that States must follow under Article 33 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Those elements also constituted indispensable guidance for the implementation of that article. Peru had a National Council for Persons with Disabilities which worked on the implementation of the Convention and had under it the technical secretariat of the commission responsible to follow-up plans regarding the equality of citizens. One of the presidents of that commission now held the position of the second-vice president of the Congress. Despite these efforts, Peru continued facing challenges and would continue working on them.

EUGENIA GUTIERREZ (Costa Rica) said Costa Rica applauded the holding of this panel and the discussion they were having today about Article 33 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was of the greatest interest to Costa Rica. Since 1973 Costa Rica had had a special council for education which brought together different bodies in charge in implementation of different measures addressing disabilities. The National Council of Rehabilitation was empowered to monitor public and private units that developed and implemented programmes in favour of persons with disabilities. The ratification of the Convention in 2008 meant more responsibilities for that Council and it had faced new challenges in verifying the compliance with the Convention. Costa Rica thanked the panel for the guidance in the area of establishing national mechanisms.

ROSE M. MUCHURI (Kenya) said as a State Party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Kenya was reviewing the Persons and Disabilities Act of 2003 to fully domesticate the provisions of the Convention. It had established a National Framework to operationalize the provisions of the Act, enabling the implementation and monitoring of actions and programmes geared towards enhancing the enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Government had mainstreamed issues of persons with disabilities into the performance-contracting mechanism. Recently the Government had established the Disability Development Fund aimed at increasing the participation of persons with disabilities in socio-economic activities. Kenya was committed to ensuring that the national framework and mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the Convention were enhanced to promote the full protection of human rights of persons with disabilities.

MOHAMED KHADIRI, of Advisory Council on Human Rights of Morocco, said that the Advisory Council on Human Rights of Morocco had addressed the rights of persons with disabilities since its creation, contributing to entrench the human rights approach, changing stereotypes that impeded disabled persons from fully enjoying their rights as citizens, and it had also sought to uphold the universal principles, including dignity and non-discrimination. Given that human rights were not only ethnical and philosophical principles, appropriate measures should be taken to implement them and set up the necessary framework to combat discrimination and exclusion at all levels, in terms of legislation and administration. Based on the principle of universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights, the Advisory Council on Human Rights of Morocco recommended that all treaty bodies take into account the rights of persons with disabilities when reviewing reports and submitting proposals to States.

KATHARINE ROSE, of Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, said that during last year’s panel dialogue the Asia Pacific Forum had recognised Article 33 as a ground breaking aspect of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The discussion today was an opportunity to bring meaning to the Article by identifying the types of national monitoring and implementation mechanisms envisaged by the Convention. The Asia Pacific Forum believed that an effective national mechanism must have a clearly defined mandate, be operationally independent, pose adequate power of inquiry and investigation, be broadly representative of the society and stakeholders and enjoy financial autonomy. The wheel need not be reinvented; national human rights institutions that met the Paris principles were uniquely and ideally placed to perform the protection, promotion and monitoring roles required by the Convention. The Asia Pacific Forum requested the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to hold a day of general discussion on Article 33 in 2010.

NEIL CROWTHER, of European Group of National Human Rights Institutions, said the European Group of National Human Rights Institutions supported the statement made by the Chair of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutes. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was unique in setting out the arrangements required at State level to promote and monitor implementation of the Convention. Implementation of the Convention presented a significant challenge for countries around the world. To discharge their role effectively, national human rights institutes required adequate resources, and all States should demonstrate their commitment to the Convention by providing them with the resources needed. The United Nations Committee would be called upon to provide strong leadership, and also required adequate financial and human resources to deliver its mandate effectively, and Member States should consider positively the Committee's request for additional support and meeting time.

STEPHAN FAUSTINELLI, of World Federation of the Deaf, said there were currently 70 million deaf people throughout the world. Those people needed to be given access to training and information and must be enabled to participate in meeting and debates. It was important for experts on the issue to be involved in monitoring of the Convention and to that end it was vital for each country to have sign language interpreters, as required by the Convention. The World Federation of the Deaf noted that in many countries, mostly developing countries, sign language interpreter services were lacking. That obstructed the deaf from participating in the monitoring and follow-up of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Concluding Remarks

MOHAMMED AL-TARAWNEH, Expert Member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, thanked all countries present and particularly those that had ratified the Convention, civil society and national human rights institutions. There were two key words in the discussion: monitoring and implementation and the Committee, and it was often asked who did what. Implementation was the role of the specialised entity and any government had the obligation as they had responsibilities arising from the Convention they ratified. Monitoring could go two ways, through government reports submitted to the Committee and through parallel shadow reports which could be submitted as well. Mr. Al-Tarawneh recommended elaboration of national disability strategies and noted that several countries had already done so. Mr. Al-Tarawneh invited any Member State or institution to enter dialogue with the Committee, collaborate or request their technical assistance.

SHUAIB CHALKEN, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission for Social Development, said a non-governmental organization had requested the Commission for Social Development to hold a day of discussion on the rights of persons with disabilities in 2010. There was a critical need for clarity, and the discussion needed to continue on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

JENNIFER LYNCH, Chairperson of the International Coordinating Committee for National Human Rights Institutions and Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said that the comment made by Pakistan was a very appropriate one. Pakistan had suggested that those States which did not yet have a national human rights institution in conformity with the Paris principles should do so. Best practices regarding national human rights institutions were also very important and the International Coordinating Committee’s work included that of being a coordinator in that regard; they would therefore be happy to make their information available to any interested stakeholders.

REGINA ATALLA, of Latin American Network of Non-Governmental Organizations of Persons with Disabilities and their Families (RIADIS), said that the limit of economic resources was an obstacle to the application of the Convention. The Convention prescribed that new buildings had to be accessible and that additional cost presented only 1 per cent of the total costs. Buildings were not accessible not because of the costs, but because there was insensitivity and lack of culture. Ms. Atalla hoped that the Convention would transform cultures. Handicapped persons were prevented from contributing to the creation of wealth for various reasons. As for how to improve the mechanism of participation of civil society – there was no recipe but Ms. Atalla was in favour of creation of national coalitions, so that organizations that were participating would have legitimacy. Also, there had to be transparency and democratic processes. Ms. Atalla thanked the Governments of Mexico and New Zealand for the initiative.

ANDREJ LOGAR, Vice-President of the Council, said the discussion had shed further light on the scope and rationale of the logistic tools and other measures required to effectively implement Article 33 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on national mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the Convention.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/018E