-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Estey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 August 2002 18:39
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRAL INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON
THE PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE RIGHTS AND DIGNITY OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES.
DAILY SUMMARY OF MEETINGS
UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT, NEW YORK
Volume I, #4
August 1, 2002
A revised, "indicative" proposed Programme of Work was introduced by the
Chair dated Aug 1, 2002. The matter of NGO participation was resolved
following informal consultations held in closed session.
Morning session
Commenced: 10:37AM
Recessed: 11:54AM
Procedural issues
In response to the sense of "urgency" that it perceived from other
delegations, India indicated its concern that the drafting process not be
hurried, and that "due process" be followed to facilitate the drafting of an
effective convention, giving time for communication with home capitals.
This position was supported by the Czech Republic. Denmark, on behalf of
the EU and associated countries, reiterated that organizational questions be
settled prior to discussion of substantive issues. Chile indicated that it
would be willing to settle preliminary procedural questions in order to move
quickly to the discussion of substantive issues. This was echoed by Sierra
Leone, South Africa, and Mexico. Surinam considered it important to move
forward with a discussion of substantive issues (as set forth in a draft
Programme of Work distributed by the Chair), in order to assure people with
disabilities of the Committee's "honest" commitment to the protection of the
rights of people with disabilities.
Content and timetable of Committee work
The Programme of Work proposed by the Chairperson yesterday at the end of
the session was distributed in a revised form, dated August 1, 2002. The
revisions were: removing the sub-topics specifying the types of rights to be
discussed, and changing the reference to "Third Generation Rights" to "Other
Rights". This partly but not entirely addressed the US request that any
reference to such rights, which it does not recognize, be removed from an
agenda.
India expressed concern that, whilst it understood the need for a "road
map," and it appreciated the efforts of the Chair and Bureau to produce the
Programme quickly, it had had insufficient time to adequately formulate its
response. Furthermore, it considered the provision of such time necessary
to permit "responsible decision-making." Regarding the allocation of time
to consider "recommendations," India questioned whether a Committee
recommendation to the General Assembly was the only alternative. In light
of the need for any recommendation to be a "consensus document," it proposed
that informal considerations of recommendation drafts be begun by Tuesday.
Canada sought to clarify where the "Four Points" raised by the EU would be
considered in the Programme of Work, and also suggested that more time be
allocated to the consideration of broader issues. Chile supported the
proposed Programme of Work, finding it a good way to move forward to the
discussion of substantive issues. The EU clarified that its intention in
raising the "Four Points" in its Statement of July 31, was to have them
included in the Programme of Work. It also wished to see the Committee
consider conference documents, such as Mexico's "Principles for Drafting a
New Treaty." The Representative from Cameroon highlighted that the
Programme of Work did not expressly include the consideration of the draft
convention submitted by Mexico, and questioned when that draft would be
considered. Sierra Leone supported the proposed Programme of Work, and
requested that the Committee be flexible in order to move forward with the
Programme and in particular to facilitate the needs of smaller delegations.
China called for the Programme to include consideration of social
development as a "basis and a precondition," or else any discussion of
implementation would be "empty talk." The Representative from Mexico, Luis
Alfonso de Alba, made several suggestions for the alteration of the
Programme, including simplifying the framework to discuss civil and
political rights in the first session; discussing "other rights as topics"
in the second session, and devoting two working meetings on Wednesday to
monitoring mechanisms. The United States responded that it did not
recognise the existence of human rights other than civil and political, and
economical, social and cultural rights, and in order to avoid a lengthy
debate on the question of the types of rights, it suggested changing the
title and scope of the proposed discussion to one of "other topics." The
Czech Republic aligned itself with the working document of the EU,
A/AC.265/WP.2, and also supported the statement of India. It sought to
clarify that it had been its understanding that its delegation had been sent
to the Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Standard Rules and to discuss gaps
where the implementation of these rules is not possible because are not
backed by other legally binding HRs instruments. Because the Mexican draft
"is not a resolution" the Czech Republic did not come prepared to discuss
such a draft. It indicated, however, that it would not "exclude the
possibility" of the Mexican draft forming the basis for any final text of,
for example, an optional protocol. Lastly, it wished to know when and where
the next round of meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee would be taking place, in
order for its missions to prepare.
The Chairperson, Luis Gallegos, responded to these suggestions by stating
that that the work of the Committee would continue with a discussion on the
"Four Points" suggested by the EU yesterday, namely: (a) why a legally
binding set of international rules should be adopted; (b) the type of legal
instrument preferred; (c) how the instrument would relate to the Standard
Rules and other existing human rights instruments; and (d) the kind of
monitoring mechanism that would be appropriate for the convention. The
Chairperson indicated that the first two issues would be addressed today.
Participation of experts/use of panels
Canada, Chile, Cameroon and the EU called for the involvement of experts to
provide their advice to the Committee, provide introductory presentations
prior to the discussion of specific topics and themes, and facilitate an
interactive exchange of ideas.
NGO participation
The Federation of Russia considered the settlement of the question of
modalities of participation of NGOs to be a priority, and requested that the
Committee hold a closed meeting to facilitate the necessary deliberations on
this issue. Chile also indicated its position that "this matter of the
NGOs" must be settled. The EU stated that is would not recommend a
discussion of the thematic issues without first settling the question of NGO
participation. Sierra Leone stated that it was "astounded" that the issue
of NGO participation had yet to be resolved at this stage of the process,
given the extensive UN experience in and precedents for inclusion of, NGOs
in various activities. It called for the question to be settled today so
that no further time would be spent on the issue. The United States called
for the suspension of the meeting to permit the delegates to meet informally
in order to reach an agreement on NGO participation. Japan supported the
proposal of the United States.
In response to the requests of states to meet informally in closed session
and consider the draft proposal on NGO participation put forward by Mexico
and the EU, the Chairperson agreed to suspend the meeting for an hour. Due
to the number of NGOs and PWD in the Conference room, Brazil proposed that
the delegates meet in alternative location. The meeting did not resume until
the afternoon session.
Afternoon session
Commenced 3.20
Adjourned 4.45 pm
NGO Participation
The Chair announced that informal consultations held during the recess under
leadership of Mexico and the EU had resulted in the adoption of "A Draft
Proposal on the Modalities of the Participation of Accredited
Nongovernmental Organizations in the Ad Hoc Committee" dated 1st August
2002. [In informal consultations, the EU said that the "accreditation" of
NGOs without consultative status remains conditional through this week until
the 7 day limit for states to object has been reached. Therefore their
"participation" is likewise conditional through this period]. This proposal
was adopted by consensus. A finalized official document has not yet been
distributed.
Preparedness
Addressing state concerns about a lack of adequate information to prepare
their positions, the Chair made available CD Roms of the complete study "The
current use and future potential of United Nations Human Rights Instruments
in the Context of Disability" commissioned by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, and authored by G. Quinn and T. Degener.
Addressing state requests for access to expertise, the Chair made
arrangements to give the floor to the two available experts - Gerard Quinn
and Professor John Mathiasson - to answer questions.
Content and Timetable of Committee Work
The first two of the "Four Points" raised by the EU in its statement of July
31st were addressed. The Chair requested Mr. Gerard Quinn to begin the
discussion who in turn deferred to the EU delegation, because the EU had
prepared a statement on this issue. Mr. Quinn said that he would be happy
to elaborate on the General Principles that was the outcome of the expert
meeting sponsored by Mexico in which he participated.
General Debate of EU's "Four Points"
The EU provided several justifications for why there should be a legally
binding instrument. 1. It "adds value to the corpus of human rights law by
making it more directly and visibly relevant in the context of disability"
thus putting "beyond doubt the core thesis..that disability is first and
foremost a human rights issue". 2. A single composite thematic instrument
could move forward the process of mainstreaming disability under the 6 core
treaties. 3. The resulting "clarity as to state obligations" could help to
focus the minds of States..and materially help them formulate appropriate
national strategies." 4. The "relatively underdeveloped" relevance of
disability in the 6 core human rights treaties would be improved.
The EU also addressed its second question regarding the kind of legal
instruments that could be considered. As elaborated in its position paper
[A/AC.265/WP.2] it put forward 5 options stating its preference for its
first choice, a broader convention dealing with general principles.
Mexico suggested to the Chair that arrangements be made for Prof. Mathiason
to speak in his personal capacity, as delegations could benefit from his
expertise.
South Africa called on delegates to refrain from using inappropriate
language in their references to PWD, noting also that some delegates are
themselves PWD. It repeated its call for the Mexican draft to be considered
as the most effective way to move forward. It commended Sweden for setting
up funds to facilitate NGO participation, particularly NGOs from developing
countries. Finally, it requested that, given evidently increased
participation from both delegates and NGOs, due provisions be made to ensure
access. The delegate from South Africa noted that as a PWD she could not get
to her designated seat. She also pointed out that NGO area was inadequate
because it could only be reached by climbing steps.
The US called for a suspension of normal rules of procedure to enable more
discussion around the impending statement by experts and stakeholders in the
room.
The Chair called on Prof. Mathiason who introduced himself in terms of his
work for many years in the Division for the Advancement of Women and as an
academic. Using the example of women's rights, he noted that following the
adoption of the UDHR and subsequent covenants it was found that exercise and
enjoyment of rights by particular groups were not enabled, even though the
rights themselves were theoretically covered in existing instruments.
Sometimes the 6 main human rights instruments are just not detailed enough
to prevent abuse of human rights against specific groups of people. There is
a need to find a way to express those policies, programmes, laws and actions
that could and should eliminate barriers and prevent discrimination such
groups. A second reason a convention was necessary was because of its
legally binding nature.
The Chair announced that he would set aside the left side of podium for PWD,
noting again that this was an exception.
Kiki Nordstrom of the World Blind Union and the International Disability
Alliance pointed out that the disability community "have been calling for a
treaty for many years. They have made many presentations to human rights
committees" yet no actions have resulted from this. They have had the
Standard Rules which for 10 years put the disability issue forward. They
have yet to see a legally binding convention that will ensure the rights of
the 600 million disabled people all over the world as equally human. Until
this has been achieved, the disability movement will not stop its "tireless"
pursuit for a convention.
The representative from Jamaica congratulated the Mexican delegation for all
its work, endorsed the statements by Prof Mathiason. She referred to the
Standard Rules and the MI principles as important documents put forth by the
UN system. She affirmed the need for a legally binding special human rights
convention that could act as a catalyst for promoting policies to protect
the rights of PWD.
Chile emphasized the implications of having an instrument with binding
force, stating that the rights of PWD were not specifically addressed in any
other such instrument except Article 23 of the Rights of the Child
convention. There is a need to deal in a mandatory way with the obligations
stemming from existing human rights conventions. The delegate requested Prof
Mathiason's opinion on the last option put forward by the EU in its working
paper on the types of conventions that could be considered. What are the
legal and practical implications of a free-standing protocol?
Mexico expressed its satisfaction that the atmosphere of the debate had
improved and was moving forward. It endorsed the need for a binding
instrument that dealt with rights beyond health and rehabilitation. Such an
instrument cannot be a general / declaratory in nature. Given the depth of
the problem, a "cultural change to put an end to exclusion and
discrimination was needed.
Brian Burdekin of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
elaborated on the implications of an international legal instrument at the
national level. In countries where treaties were self-executing, the
practical reality of an international convention were meaningful. Where
national laws did exist, the key link between disability and international
human rights and human rights values was missing. He gave the example of a
national ban on political advertising on radio and television, seen as
generally desirable, but from the perspective of PWD had the effect of
denying them information from the only sources they may have had access to.
Often his obligations in the OHCHR to ensure that protections extended to
people who fell into the "other status" category was not seen to be binding
or subject to dispute because these groups were not specifically mentioned.
In his practical experience, he noted, if there is not a binding
international instrument then there is not the same focus, awareness and
practice at the government legislative level.
The OHCHR also expressed their appreciation that invitations have been
issued to national human rights institutions -- human rights commissioners
and disability ombudsman -- around the world who increasingly have the role
of protecting the human rights of PWD.
Three NGOs dealing with the rights of persons with psychiatric disabilities
and mental health - Support Coalition International (SCI), The World
Federation of Mental Health and the World Network Psychiatric Users and
Survivors (WNPUS) made statements rejecting the MI Principles mentioned
during this session's debate. Celia Brown (SCI) stated that the they
"reflect a paternalistic medical model approach." Tina Minkowitz (WNPUS)
stated that they "are not acceptable. endorsing practices that are human
rights abuses" like involuntary confinement and forced treatment. They
called for a legally binding convention that would address their rights on
the basis equality with all others.
Norway emphasized the importance it generally attaches to the need to
understand how existing human rights instruments can be used to deal with
full range of human rights issues. In this case however it believed that a
new convention is required. While endorsing the effort of the EU in
formulating its position paper, it questioned the paper's reference to
"utopian" proposals, noting that these standards change depending on the
circumstances - who is to decide what is "utopian?". Norway requested
information from Prof. Mathiason about how and to what extent the situation
for groups like women and children have been approved by adopting specialty
standards.
Prof. Mathiason replied that while there has been no systematic study of
evidence that putting legal requirements into the form of a convention have
resulted in change, his experience with the Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women and its monitoring body demonstrates that as
states began the process of reporting to the Committee they did change their
policies and practices. He also pointed out that many countries that signed
on to the Women's Convention did not realize at the time the full
implications of what they had signed on to.
The US stated that "there is no doubt that all countries currently have the
legal obligation to respect the rights of all persons, including the rights
of PWD." It acknowledged that the practice was far below that standard. The
US recommends a "a multi-pronged approach" to this situation. There is a
need to mainstream disability rights into current treaty bodies. The new
treaty should be one of several approaches and such a treaty should be
narrowly focused on elaborating those rights that are not mentioned in
existing instruments.
The Chair concluded what he said was a "fruitful" meeting by noting that as
proposed the Committee had considered the first two questions from the EU's
Four Points. In addition, aspects of the two additional questions been
addressed in the process.
The Disability Negotiations Daily Summaries are published by the Landmine
Survivors Network, a US based international organization with amputee
support networks in six developing / mine affected countries. LSN staff and
consultants contributing to these summaries include and Zahabia Adamaly, MA
([log in to unmask]), Katherine Guernsey, JD
([log in to unmask]), and Janet E. Lord, LLB (editor)
([log in to unmask]). Any questions or concerns relating to the
Summaries should be directed to Janet Lord.
The Disability Negotiations Daily Summaries are published by the Landmine
Survivors Network, a US based international organization with amputee
support networks in six developing / mine affected countries. LSN staff and
consultants contributing to these summaries include and Zahabia Adamaly, MA
([log in to unmask]), Katherine Guernsey, JD
([log in to unmask]), and Janet E. Lord, LLB (editor)
([log in to unmask]). Any questions or concerns relating to the
Summaries should be directed to Janet Lord.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Click here to find your contact lenses!
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[log in to unmask]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
________________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.
|
