This may be of interest. The original mail came with an attached word
document. The text of this is now below the forwarded message - as this mail
list doesn't accept attachments. If anyone want the original please email
me.
Benedict
> -----Original Message-----
> From: anna bruce [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 28 August 2001 10:38
> Subject: Questionnaire
>
>
> Dear Sir / Madame,
>
> The Office of the UN High Commission for Human Rights has engaged two
> disability law consultants (Professors Theresia Degener and Gerard
> Quinn) to carry out an assessment of the current use and future
> potential of the existing UN human rights treaties in the context of
> disability. Research for this study is now underway and is expected to
> be concluded in the Autumn of 2001.
>
> One of the aims of this study is to evaluate to what extent Disability
> NGOs and INGOs are engaged in the monitoring of UN human rights
> treaties.
> For this purpose, a questionnaire directed towards Disability NGOs and
> INGOs has been compiled. This questionnaire is attached below.
>
> Information from the Disability NGO and INGO community is crucial to
> this study. We would be very grateful if You could see to the completion
>
> of this questionnaire on behalf of Your organisation, as well as forward
> it to any affiliated organisations You may have, encouraging them to
> complete it.
> Further instructions on the completion of the questionnaire, as well as
> background information, is provided in the attachment below.
> If you have already received this questionnaire from elsewhere, please
> ignore this mail.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anna Bruce
>
> Researcher
> Disability Law and Policy Unit
> Faculty of Law
> National University of Ireland
> Galway – IRELAND.
>
> Email [log in to unmask]
>
> Tel. [353]-91-524411
> Fax. [353]-91-750506.
>
QUESTIONAIRE ORIGINALLY ATTACHED IN WORD FORMAT NOW PASTED BELOW
Study on the Current Use and Future Potential
of the UN Human Rights Treaties
in the Field of Disability.
Professor Theresia Degener
Professor Gerard Quinn.
Questionniare
Directed to
Disablity NGOs and INGOs
July, 2001.
Background to the Questionnaire.
The Office of the UN High Commission for Human Rights has engaged two
disability law consultants (Professors Degener and Quinn) to carry out an
assessment of the current use and future potential of the existing UN human
rights treaties in the context of disability. Research for this study is
now underway and is expected to be concluded in the Autumn of 2001.
The main UN human rights treaties involved are
- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR),
- the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR),
- the Rights of the Child Convention (CRC),
- the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW),
- the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
(CERD), and
- the Convention against Torture (CAT).
Each of these treaties have their own specific treaty-specific monitoring or
implementation bodies ('treaty monitoring bodies'). All conventions use
Periodic Reports by States as a method of 'implementation'. Contrary to
much popular belief, this method of 'implementation' allows considerable
scope for NGO involvement. In addition to State Reporting, the ICCPR,
CEDAW, CERD and CAT also allow for individuals or groups of individuals to
communicate 'complaints' regarding alleged violations of rights. These
'complaints' are directed to the relevant treaty monitoring body provided
that the State in question has explicitly agreed or opted to accept the
complaints procedure. Exposure to 'complaints' on the part of a State does
not follow automatically from ratification.
The Office of the High Commission for Human Rights maintains a treaty
database that gives details about the current status of States' ratification
of the various human rights treaties (including whether they chose to be
bound by the various 'complaints' mechanisms) . This database should be
consulted if unsure about the status of a States' ratification of a human
rights treaty (including the text of declarations or reservations). The
database also contains most Periodic State Reports. Some conventions also
allow for Inter-State complaints which is rare in general as well as in the
case of disability. The term 'States Parties' simply refers to those States
that have ratified particular conventions.
Many treaty monitoring bodies have the capacity to issue General
Commentaries on the treaties in question. Often these General Commentaries
will focus on the meaning of the rights protected in the context of specific
groups. Although they are not legally binding, they do nevertheless clarify
the nature of State obligations as they pertain to certain groups. Only one
treaty monitoring body has, so far, issued a general commentary on
disability (General Comment No 5, of 1994 under the ICESCR).
The Study will look at the nature of the paradigm shift toward human rights
that took place in the early 1990s and which is best and most famously
exemplified by the United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalisation of
Opportunities for People with Disabilities (1993). It will take a detailed
look at how that paradigm shift is being reflected in the work of the
various treaty monitoring bodies set up under the UN human rights treaties.
It is, of course, of the utmost importance that the general policy shift
announced in the UN Standard Rules should be reflected in practical ways in
the manner by which the UN human rights machinery operates.
The Study will also act as a practical reference guide in assisting domestic
Disabled Peoples Organizations (DPOs) and International Non-Governmental
Organizations to get more engaged than at present in the work of the treaty
monitoring bodies. Lastly the Study aims to provide a roadmap for the
future. This roadmap will include practical suggestions for reform that
should lead to increased DPO and INGO engagement with the UN human rights
treaty machinery and one that should lead to greater responsiveness from
that machinery on the issue of disability.
Obviously the DPO and INGO experience to date of the relevant UN human
rights machinery is a vital part of this Study. There is a real need to
track the extent to which the human rights machinery is currently being used
by DPOs and INGOs. There is a need to pinpoint inhibiting factors (such as
lack of awareness or lack of resources and personnel) that may account for
the relative under-utilization of the human rights machinery by the
disability community. Critical success factors will also need to be
identified to suggest optimum ways of engaging with the machinery to bring
about tangible results on the ground. The DPOs and the INGOs will also have
their own views as to the best way forward in the future. This information
is critically important to this Study because the NGO community is the chief
agent for democratic change and it is imperative that the tools of human
rights are used to the maximum extent to help leverage that change.
For the purposes of this Study we do not differentiate between physical,
sensory or intellectual disability but use the human rights model as a
generic rubric to include all categories of disability.
Parts of the Questionnaire Outlined.
This primary aim of this Questionnaire is to let the DPO and INGO experience
speak for itself on the issue of the UN human rights machinery in the
context of disability. Its findings form a key part of the Study.
There are six Parts to the Questionnaire as follows:
Part 1 solicits general information about the nature of the respondent DPO
or INGO, including whether they have consultative status in the UN system.
Part II seeks to get at the extent to which the DPOs and the INGOs have
themselves shifted to reflect the move to the human rights paradigm. This
is useful information in that it helps us to track how far the disability
community has moved toward the human rights model.
Part III solicits information about the capacities of the DPOs and INGOs to
engage with the human rights machinery of the UN. The DPOs and INGOs are
asked to be as frank as possible in their self-evaluation since specific
recommendations may well need to be made about human rights education and
capacity building.
Part IV seeks to get at current levels of engagement of the disability
community with the UN human rights machinery. We need to know if there are
specific reasons why current levels of engagement are relatively low and
what these reasons are. This is important because there may well be
opportunities for engagement that are presently under-utilized.
Part V seeks to get at the effects of engagement (to the extent that there
has been engagement) from the perspective of the disability community to
date. Engaging with the human rights machinery needs to be done not merely
for its own sake (which may have some intangible educative effect) but more
importantly to bring about change. This is an important aspect of the
Questionniare because we are trying to gauge the impact of engagement as a
catalyst for change as viewed from the perspective of the disability
community.
In Part VI we ask DPOs and INGOs for their views as to the best way forward.
This affords the DPOs and INGOs wide space to reflect on the kinds of
inhibiting factors that need to be addressed if the best possible use of the
UN human rights machinery is to be made. Our focus is on the existing UN
human rights machinery. However, this Part is kept deliberately open-ended
because there may well be issues that the disability community would like
to focus on that we have not thought of. Among other things, this leaves
space for the DPOs and INGOs to reflect on the case for a dedicated thematic
human right treaty on the rights of persons with disabilities although it
must be pointed out that this Study has as its primary aim the maximization
of the potential of the existing instruments.
Guide for Respondents.
It would be helpful if the DPOs and INGOs would answer each of the specific
questions as numbered. This does not mean that the respondents are
restricted in what they say or how they say it (i.e., in terms of length).
The Questionnaire is in WORD format and respondents may take as much room as
they like to answer individual questions. If a respondent does not have an
electronic copy then an email requesting one should be sent to Anna Bruce
(see below)
It would be useful if respondents would forward any documentation they
consider relevant to the nature of scope of his Study to the address below.
If respondents do not wish to be identified they are entitled to so request
and we will, of course, comply with any such request. If any part of a
response is marked confidential we shall respect such confidentiality.
Respondents are asked to respond to Anna Bruce (by email preferably) who is
our main research assistant on the project by mid-September, 2001. Her
contact details are:
Anna Bruce
Researcher
Disability Law and Policy Unit
Faculty of Law
National University of Ireland
Galway - IRELAND.
Email [log in to unmask]
Tel. [353]-91-524411.
Fax. [353]-91-750506.
The results of this survey will be published in the Report to be compiled at
the conclusion of this research Study.
It will take about 2-3 hours to complete the questionnaire. Your response
is greatly valued and the time spent will be repaid many times over if the
Study can point to practicable recommendations for change. The responses of
the disability community is the key to the credibility of any
recommendations that will ensue.
Part I
Organization Details.
Name of Organization:
Date of Formation:
Country or Region of Operation:
Aim/s of Organization:
Membership:
[How many and whether representative of persons with disabilities]
Affiliation to National, Regional or International Disability NGOs and
INGOs:
Affiliation with Traditional Human Rights NGOs:
[e.g., Amnesty International]
Consultative Status within the UN System:
Main Source of Funding:
Contact Details [address, telephone, fax, email]
Website address:
Part II
Tracking the Shift to the Human Rights Paradigm on Disability in your
Organization.
1. Would you describe your organization as a human rights organization?
2. Is the human rights perspective written into your mission statement or
strategy?
3. If you recently shifted towards the human rights paradigm when did the
shift take place and how?
4. Has your organization made any organizational changes to facilitate or
reflect the paradigm shift to human rights? If so, what were these changes?
5. If you belong to a consortium (whether national , regional or
international) of disability organizations then to what extent does that
consortium subscribe to the human rights dimension to disability?
6. Has you organization ever led a human rights campaign?
Part II
Self-Evaluating Your Capacity to Use the Paradigm Shift to Best Effect under
the UN Human Rights Treaties.
A: How Adequate are levels of Human Rights Awareness and Education?
7. Do you feel that your organization is adequately equipped to understand
the human rights paradigm and to make the best use of the existing UN human
rights treaties in the field?
8. Do you frequently work with Governmental (e.g., human rights commissions)
or Non-Governmental human rights organizations?
9. Do you utilize UN General Assembly Resolutions and other human rights
'soft law' policy instruments (i.e., other than the Conventions)
- as models for domestic legislation
- as universal standards of assessment for human rights reporting
- as advocacy tools pressing Governments for policy and legal changes
- as tools for promoting the political participation by people with
disabilities
- as guidelines for the operation of domestic rights enforcement, quality
assurance or other oversight mechanisms.
10. Do you utilize the UN Conventions ('hard law') for any or more of the
above (Q.9)?
11. Does your organization hold internal seminars for staff or general
seminars for the public on the human rights dimension to disability?
12. Has your organization ever published or commissioned the publication of
material on the human rights dimension to disability?
13. Does your organization use General Comment No 5 on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities adopted under the ICESCR in its work?
14. Does your organization visit the human rights websites of the UN
frequently, sometimes, very infrequently, never.
B: Do you have Dedicated Human Rights Personnel?
15. Does your organization employ any staff specifically dedicated to human
rights issues in the context of disability?
16. If so, how does this staff person interact with others in your
hierarchy? What status does s/he have in the organization
17. Does you organization hire in any outside expertise on human rights and
disability?
18. If so, is this arrangement on an ongoing basis or on a need-to-hire
basis?
Part III:
Current Levels of DPO/INGO Engagement with the UN Human Rights Machinery.
A: Why Do you Engage with the Treaty Monitoring bodies?
19. Does your organization send delegates to attend the annual meeting of
the UN Human Rights Commission? If so, how often do they go (every year?)?
20. Does your organization have a worked-out strategy for general engagement
with the UN treaty monitoring bodies? [see p. 2 for list of treaties].
21. Which treaty monitoring body do you engage with the most:
ICCPR
ICESCR
CAT
CEDAW
CRC
CERD
22. Is your organization aware of which if these treaties your Government
has signed/ratified?
23. Is your organization aware of the declarations, reservations or
derogations that your Government has made to these treaties (if any)?
24. Before your organization engages with the treaty monitoring bodies,
does it develop a worked-out a strategy of what it would like to achieve?
25. For example, does your organization engage with the treaty monitoring
bodies
- to bring about an end to a perceived and specific violation of rights of
persons with disabilities?
- to sensitize and educate the treaty monitoring bodies to the disability
perspective in their work?
- to highlight a thematic issue of general concern (e.g., equal and
effective access to education for children with disabilities)?
- to highlight an issue of specific concern in a specific country or region
(e.g., violations of rights of people with intellectual disabilities in
institutional settings in country x,y,z)?
- for another reason?
26. Does your organization work closely with other mainstream human rights
NGOs. How (at their invitation or your request) and to what effect?
27. In your experience, are the mainstream human rights NGOs open to
incorporating a disability perspective in their work?
B: Why do you Not Engage with the Treaty Monitoring Bodies?
28. If your organization does not engage with the Treaty monitoring bodies,
why not?
29. Does you relative or absolute lack of involvement have to do, for
example, with
Awareness deficits?
- not enough outreach information on the part of the UN human rights
machinery?
- lack of awareness of the concrete possibilities for engagement
- lack of awareness about how the treaty monitoring bodies work
- lack of awareness about the disability dimension to the human rights
treaties and the perspective of the treaty monitoring bodies on disability
-
Resource Deficits?
- lack of material resources
- lack of appropriate personnel
Judgment Calls about the Utility of Engagement?
- a judgment that other priorities in your own country are more pressing
- a judgment that involvement might tie up a disproportionate amount of time
and resources relative to any possible positive outcome
- a judgment that the outcome itself - even when positive - might have a
limited impact on State practice
- a judgment that your Government and/or media are uninterested
- previous negative experience that may have deterred you for the future.
C: How do you Engage with the UN Human Rights Machinery
30. Have any of the treaty monitoring bodies ever approached you for an
input into their work?
31. Has your organization ever submitted a 'shadow report' on the rights of
persons with disability to any of the UN human rights treaty monitoring
bodies? If so, please give details.
32. Has your organization ever interacted with the UN human rights treaty
monitoring bodies generally or in the context of compiling particular State
Reports . If so, please give details.
33. Has your organization ever filed a complaint (or assisted in the filing
of a complaint) or made a communication to one or other of the treaty
monitoring bodies? If so, please give details.
D: How do you Engage with States Parties?
34. Have the States Parties to the conventions ever contacted you for an
input into the compilation of their own Periodic State Reports under the
conventions as they touch on the issue of disability? Did you accept the
invitation?
35. For your part, have you ever initiated contact with States Parties in
order to be consulted about the compilation of their Periodic State Reports?
Did the State agree to involve you in the process?
36. If you have been involved in the process of compiling Periodic State
Reports (whether by the invitation of States or as a result of your own
initiative), how seriously, in your view, was your contribution taken by the
States Parties?
Part IV.
Outcome of Engagement with the Human Rights Treaty
Monitoring Bodies.
A: Process
37. What was your general experience of the process involved?
38. Did you form the impression that the treaty monitoring bodies understood
your arguments and were sufficiently open to, and familiar with, the
disability perspective?
39. Did you form the impression that your contribution was put to good use
by the treaty monitoring bodies?
B: Positioning to Use the Output.
40. Did your organization have a worked-out political strategy on how best
to utilize the outcomes of international engagement in the domestic
political arena? What did this strategy involve and did it work?
C: Output
41. What emerged concretely from your engagement with the treaty monitoring
bodies?
42. How did the States Parties respond?
43. Did you detect any change in domestic law or policy as a result of
engagement?
44. Are States, in your view, beginning to anticipate possible negative
outcomes (from their perspective) and is this inducing States to accelerate
their programmes of law reform in order to deflect potential international
criticism?
Part VI:
The Future.
A: Your General Judgment about the Value of Engagement.
45. Do you see engagement with the treaty monitoring bodies as beneficial?
46. Would you like to enhance your level of engagement with the treaty
monitoring bodies.
B: Improvements you might like to see in the Performance of the Treaty
Monitoring Bodies.
47. What improvements, if any, would you like to see made to the existing
arrangements for engagement with the treaty monitoring bodies?
48. Would you like to see General Commentaries developed under all the UN
human rights treaties in the specific context of disability?
C: Improving your Own Human Rights Capacities to Take Advantage of
Engagement Possibilities
49. What changes would you like to make to your organization, if any, in
order to better equip your entity to have more of an impact through the
treaty monitoring bodies?
D: A Role for Human Rights Training?
50. Does you organization see a role for some body (whether INGO, university
or research institute) to educate disability NGOs and INGOs in the human
rights paradigm and to equip them to make the best possible use of the UN
instruments?
39. Do you have any ideas about how this might by done?
E: Any Other Comments, Observations or Recommendations.
Please use this space to make whatever comments, observations or
recommendations you feel relevant to the terms of this Study.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
