UN Convention on the Human Rights of People with Disabilities

Sixth Ad Hoc Committee Daily Summaries

A service brought to you by RI (Rehabilitation International)

Volume 7, #1

August 1, 2005

MORNING SESSION

Ambassador Don MacKay, the new Chair, welcomed the delegates and visitors. He introduced Laura Lazarus from South Africa as the new Vice Chair, nominated by the African Group. Other Bureau positions were filled by election in April. The agenda (A/AC.265/2005/L3) and organization of work (A/AC.265/2005/CRP.3) was adopted.

The Chair highlighted the need for the Convention should be drafted as quickly as possible not only to save resources for the organizations involved, but also to enshrine the rights of people with disabilities as soon as possible. Continuity, participation, and institutional knowledge may be lost if negotiations continue for too long. The Chair proposed that participants attempt to complete one article per afternoon or morning session. Article facilitators will need to report back any progress on articles covered in previous meetings. The Coordinator stated that the facilitators’ meetings will be transparent and open-ended, and will result in reports back to the AHC.

The Bureau has decided that the last 30 minutes of each morning and afternoon session will be a formal meeting so that the NGOs may contribute. The Chair may call on experts at any time for consultation. The Chair encouraged State delegations and NGOs to coordinate with each other and to make their views known to the facilitators.

The working group (WG) text will be the default text for negotiation, but all other texts can also be considered. One article per session will place pressure on the group to get our work completed. The group should not spend time drafting, but should pursue substantive conversations, narrowing down issues and identifying differences. This is not the final time to go through the text. Nothing is decided until everything is decided. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Structural issues should be left until the end of the process. Titles of the articles should not be discussed because it has not been decided whether the final document will contain titles.

Article 15: Living independently and being included in the community.

The Chair asked for comments on the chapeau and on paragraphs 15(a) and (b).

United Kingdom, on behalf of the EU, supported the proposals it had offered at AHC5, (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6eu.htm) including the link between independent living and the right to be included in the community. It supported the deletion of 15(b).

Jordan suggested changing the text in (a) and (b) to the following: "people with disabilities have the equal opportunity to choose their place of residence and are not obliged to live in an institution or a particular living arrangement." This keeps the essence of the two paragraphs and reduces redundancy.

Mexico supported Jordan's statement regarding the redundancy in (a) and (b).

New Zealand modified its changes to its previous suggestions which are now closer to the WG text. (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6nz.htm)These changes would replace (a) and (b) with 15(1), referring to Article 12(1) of ICCPR, thus reminding States Parties of the ideas of liberty of movement and freedom to choose one's residence. The rest of the Article describes the measures which should be taken to achieve this right. The Chair asked New Zealand whether its proposal would replace (a) and (b). New Zealand responded that the existing chapeau would become 15(2), and 15(a) and (b) would become 15(1). The civil and political rights would be stated first, followed by those provisions which depend on resources. The Chair pointed out that the new text includes liberty of movement which is not in the WG text.

Thailand restated its position from AHC 5 in support of full participation, choice, and full inclusion within the community. Thailand would consider the NZ proposal but considers the stress on “availability of resources” in that text unnecessary because the concept of progressive realization of ESCR is already in General Obligations.

Serbia and Montenegro supported EU and Mexico regarding the redundancy of 15(b), and suggested adding “freedom of choice” to the chapeau. It expressed interest in the New Zealand proposal.

New Zealand explained that it had suggested adding liberty of movement to this Article because several proposals have been made to delete Article 20. It supported Thailand's suggestion to remove “maximum extent of available resources” from this article because this is addressed in Article 4. It also supported EU's changes to the chapeau which becomes 15(2) in its version.

Republic of Korea supported the concept of independent living and retaining the WG text.

Jordan spoke in favor of retaining the original text, reading “not obliged to live in an institution." The Chair asked Jordan whether it still wanted to combine 15(a) and 15(b). Jordan responded that it did.

The Chair summarized the discussion. He stated that no one had raised issues regarding the chapeau, 15(a), or 15(b). The EU brought up suggestions made by the Chair in the last session, replacing “to enable persons” with to “to facilitate” as well as replacing “fully included” with “full inclusion.” Some speakers had argued that 15(b) duplicates other paragraphs in Article 15 as well as Article 10. Jordan suggested combining the ideas in 15(a) and 15(b), replacing these paragraphs with “people with disabilities have the equal opportunity to choose their place of residence and are not obliged to live in an institution or a particular living arrangement.” New Zealand has an alternative formula which draws on the ICCPR. And some States support the WG text. He asked for response on those proposals.

China suggested that 15(b) be changed to read: “without discrimination provide community facilities and services and respond to people with disabilities' needs.” The Chair pointed out that the provision of community services is covered in 15(c) and 15(d) and partially in 15(e). The chapeau, 15(a), and 15(b) relate to freedom of choice and 15(c), 15(d), and 15(e) relate to facilities and services. He asked China whether its proposal fits better in that area. China agreed.

Japan suggested that 15(b) be moved to Article 10 to avoid duplication.

Canada supported Jordan's proposal to combine 15(a) and 15(b) and New Zealand's suggestion to replace them with a new paragraph, 15(1), which would use Article 12 of the ICCPR as a framework. Canada suggested amending New Zealand's proposal, by adding “equal” before “right” in 15(1). This will affirm that people with disabilities have the same rights as everyone else in ICCPR. Also, because the first paragraph is a civil and political right, Canada recommended New Zealand's paragraph 15(2) as a chapeau for the paragraphs that follow, in recognition of the need for progressive realization of the specific programmatic details (economic, social and cultural rights). However, the concept of progressive realization could be confusing in the context of civil and political rights.

The Chair mentioned that economic, social, and cultural rights are progressively realizable but this committee has not focused on this issue. The concept of progressive realization could be included in Article 15 and in other articles if delegates so choose. The Chair noted that CRC, Article 4, contains language about this concept. (“States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social, and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and where needed within the framework of international cooperation.”)

El Salvador supported Jordan's proposal, because it covers more content, and suggested amending it by adding at the end the words “unless (except) where necessary.”

Costa Rica supported New Zealand's proposal because it included the right to choose and freedom of movement. The outcome of discussions on Article 20 will determine whether New Zealand's suggested changes for Article 15 will be accepted. Merging civil and political rights with progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights will be complicated, but should be studied further. The English version, “living arrangements,” does not translate to Spanish; this term refers to the structures in which people live.

Malaysia supported progressive realization depending upon States' resources. It supported New Zealand's proposed 15(2).

Argentina supported the WG text, retaining 15(b) which affirms that PWD are not obliged to live in institutions or in any particular structure. It also supported Jordan's merging of (a) and (b).

United States stated that independent living is important and is enshrined in US law and Supreme Court decisions.

Mexico stated that since progressive realization is already in the general obligations article, it does not need to be included in each article.

Norway stated that 15(b) is redundant and supported New Zealand's proposal.

The Chair summarized the discussion. Several delegations favor merging 15(a) and 15(b), while others advocate moving 15(b) to Article 10. Several delegations support New Zealand's approach of using the ICCPR, though others do not. Some prefer the language “choose their residence” over the term “living arrangements.” The Chair asked for comments in support of either New Zealand's proposal drawing on the ICCPR, or the WG text. Some delegations favor including the qualifier “to the maximum extent of available resources” but other delegations have stated that these words do not need to be in each article.

Jamaica supported collapsing 15(a) and 15(b), as suggested by Jordan, and supported the WG text.

El Salvador supported Jamaica and preferred using the WG text as the basis of discussion.

Republic of Korea supported El Salvador in using the WG text as a basis of discussion, and will consider the New Zealand proposal as an addition to the WG text. It proposed, as a compromise to the addition of “to the maximum extent of their available resources,” the alternative language “make every possible effort.”

The Chair stated that the WG text would be the basis of discussion. No one has spoken against the merging of 15(a) and 15(b) into a single paragraph reading as follows: “PWD have the equal opportunity to choose their place of residence and are not obliged to live in an institution or in a particular living arrangement.” El Salvador added to the end of the sentence “except where necessary.”

Thailand supported the Republic of Korea and supports the concepts of full inclusion, independent living, and freedom to choose. Although it supports the WG text, it wants to include some of the substance of New Zealand's proposals, but not the addition of the phrase “to the maximum extent possible.”

The Chair asked Thailand to suggest possible language. Thailand responded that text had been proposed during AHC5, but this was not included in the report. The Chair explained that consensus had not been reached, and he encouraged Thailand to introduce its proposal again.

Russian Federation supported using the WG text as a basis of discussion.

Costa Rica endorsed Thailand's proposal, and proposed replacing the word "enable" with the word "facilitate" in the chapeau. Costa Rica agreed with the idea of merging 15(a) and 15(b), and urged deleting the first instance of the term "living arrangements," as well as the word “equal” before the word "opportunity." It also expressed approval for New Zealand's language “where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others.” The resulting paragraph would read: “PWD shall have the opportunity to determine (choose) where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in institutions or in a particular living arrangement, except as provided in Article 10." This reference to Article 10 was also proposed by the European Union.

The Chair asked for comments regarding whether delegations preferred “to enable PWD” or “to facilitate PWD” and whether Costa Rica's proposal is acceptable with reference to Article 10.

New Zealand expressed support for Costa Rica's proposed insertion of the phrase “where and with whom,” and stated that the word "institution" should be replaced with the phrase “a particular living arrangement” so as not to imply that institutionalization is acceptable as long as it is not mandatory. This article is about a movement away from the institutional approach; however, this does not mean that no group settings should be available. The phrase “except where necessary” should not be added because it would detract from the right to independent living.

The EU expressed preference for “facilitate” rather than “enable,” and supported “full inclusion” because it is stronger. It expressed concern about using only part of Article 12 of the ICCPR and not the entire text. That document's 12(3) contains this caveat: “The above right shall not be subject to any restriction except those which are provided by law and are necessary to protect...” Using parts of the ICCPR, out of context, may not accurately reflect its intent.

The Chair expressed concern that the term “facilitate” is not linguistically correct. The EU supported the term “full inclusion” over “fully included in the community.” The Chair asked whether it would then read “full inclusion in the community.” He stated that the reference to Article 10 was supported by the EU and Costa Rica, and he asked whether New Zealand disagreed with a specific reference.

The EU stated that the chapeau would read: “States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate the enjoyment by persons with disabilities of independent living and full inclusion as members of the community including measures aimed at ensuring that:...” Paragraph 15(b) must be worded carefully. The EU pledged to restudy New Zealand's proposal.

Serbia and Montenegro endorsed the proposals by Costa Rica and the EU to merge the text, as well as New Zealand's addition of “where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others” at the end of the chapeau. Serbia and Montenegro stated that it supports adding “to the maximum extent of their available resources,” but remains flexible.

The Chair stated that the phrase “to the maximum extent of their available resources” is related to the subsequent paragraphs. He summarized the language which he felt had gained support among the delegates, from the WG text with amendments, as follows: “States Parties at this Convention shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate persons with disabilities to independent living and their full inclusion as members of the community including by ensuring that: (a) PWD have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live an institution or in a particular living arrangement, subject to Article 10.” The Chair said he had heard no comments regarding New Zealand's proposal to delete “living in an institution.”

Australia supported New Zealand's deletion of the reference to institutions.

El Salvador supported including institutions and the clause “except where necessary.”

The Chair asked whether the reference to Article 10, which lists the circumstances under which PWD can be deprived of their liberty, was acceptable to the delegates.

El Salvador responded that it does not support including a reference to Article 10. Although no PWD should be forced to live in an institution, there may be PWD who need to live in an institution, such as those without families. The State has an obligation to take care of these individuals. “Except where necessary” is different from a reference to Article 10.

The Chair stated that the Convention emphasizes the rights and entitlements of PWD. Article 10 takes that approach with regard to the deprivation of liberty. If an exception is included in another article, allowing States to do whatever is "necessary," States' obligations in Article 10 would be undermined.

Thailand suggested that the chapeau should read: “States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate PWD full enjoyment of freedom of choice, independent living and full participation as members of the community....” The Chair asked the Republic of Korea and the EU whether they agreed with Thailand's suggestion; both responded in the affirmative.

The Chair asked for comments on the second half of the article, particularly 15(c), 15(d), and 15(e), regarding the necessary level of support. Some delegations favor including a statement about progressive realization; other delegations do not believe there is a need to mention progressive realization in each article, and urge instead that this concept should be dealt with once, as in CRC Article 4.

Japan stated that the provisions in 15(c), 15(d), and 15(e) should be progressively realized because they are social, economic and cultural rights. There needs to be a chapeau as New Zealand suggested but “ensure” is too strong a word since this section should be progressively realized.

The Chair stated that a new chapeau may be written, or the report will reflect that these are economic and social rights, or a generic paragraph could be written covering the entire Convention. The risk in putting in progressive realization in each article is that unintentional gaps will exist. He suggested that the committee deal with this issue after the articles are further refined, and after the provisions are identified as either social, economic, and cultural rights.

Serbia and Montenegro stated that the question is how progressive realization of certain provisions can best be integrated into the Convention. It supported 15(c), 15(d) and 15(e) as drafted. It endorsed New Zealand's 15(c)(bis) because it takes into account PWD autonomy, individuality and diversity and supported the addition of the words “and facilities” in 15(d). Paragraphs 15(d)(bis) and 15(e)(bis) are interesting but would be better suited to Article 20 and Article 9.

The Chair asked whether delegates agreed that social, economic and cultural rights (as opposed to civil and political rights) are subject to progressive realization and available resources. He saw no opposition from delegations. The text needs to reflect this either generically or in each article.

New Zealand supported the WG group text of 15(c), 15(d), and 15(e), including the addition of “and facilities” in 15(d). It proposed 15(c)(bis) to ensure that support services are provided to PWD in a manner that maximizes autonomy. Although a person may be dependent on services, that person should be independent in terms of the ability to make choices on an equal basis with others. This concept needs to be reflected in the Convention. New Zealand offered the following proposal: "support services are provided to PWD in a manner that recognizes their autonomy, individuality and dignity, and the diversity of their disabilities.” It also proposed moving concepts found in Article 20 to this article, with the addition of 15(d)(bis) and 15(e)(bis).

Canada supported the WG text and supports adding the words “and facilities" in 15(d) and 15(e). It proposed adding to the end of 15(e) the words “support services, and facilities in formats which are accessible and in plain language.” It supported the principles in New Zealand's proposal for 15(c)(bis), but noted that these are overarching principles which should appear throughout the entire Convention. The Preamble already contains this language. New Zealand agreed to re-examine its proposal in light of the language in the Preamble.

The EU stated that progressive realization should appear in the general principles, rather than being raised in some articles and not others, which could create gaps. It proposed to delete 15(c) which duplicates parts of Article 19. It will consider 15(c)(bis). It supported the addition of “and facilities” in 15(d) and suggested replacing “are available on an equal basis” with “are available without discrimination.” It opposed Canada's addition regarding accessible format, preferring the issue to be kept in Article 19. It is better to link all the issues in one article. If the issue of accessible formats appears in some articles but not others, there is a danger that this issue will be seen as unimportant.

Canada clarified its language on accessible formats. It agreed with the EU only if all the issues regarding accessibility are dealt with in Article 19.

The Chair suggested the group address accessible formats later, during the discussion of Article 19. He stated there was much support for adding “and facilities” to 15(d). He asked for comments regarding the alternatives phrases “without discrimination” or “on an equal basis.”

New Zealand stated that 15(c)(bis) should not appear only in the Preamble. The way support services are provided have a huge impact on PWD's ability to make choices. Paragraph 15(c)(bis) was proposed during AHC3, but was incorporated in 15(c). Now New Zealand is proposing to make this issue a separate paragraph. It will consider Canada's proposal in the context of Article 19.

Yemen supported specifying programs on implementing services and agreed with Serbia and Montenegro on this. It supported Canada on the issue of accessible formats.

The Chair summarized that there is general support for the WG text, and for adding “and facilities” in 15(d) and 15(e). No one has spoken against the suggestion to replace “without discrimination” with “on an equal basis.” In regard to 15(c)(bis), States are divided about whether to include it in this Article or just in the Preamble. There was a suggestion to move language from 15(e) to Article 19; this will be discussed later.

Mexico stated that it prefers the words “on an equal basis” over “without discrimination” in 15(d).

AFTERNOON SESSION

Article 15: Living independently and being included in the community (cont)

NGO Interventions

International Disability Caucus stated that choosing how and with whom PWD live is vital because it helps in learning new skills and being included in the community. PWD who do not have this right or choice may be forced to live away from family or friends or in institutions. Freedom of mobility and the right to live in the community is the most basic expression of self-determination. No one should be forced to live in an institution or a particular living arrangement. Recognition of full legal capacity is needed so that PWD choices are followed. Some PWD may need support, and this support must be individualized and flexible. Too often the person is expected to fit into the service. Article 15 must recognize that PWD have the right to live and be included in the community. Many people live in the community but are not included. The Article needs to make clear that institutions are not an option. Paradigm shifts take time to occur. Qualifiers such as "to the maximum extent of available resources" and references to Article 10 weaken this right to live in the community. The IDC supports New Zealand's proposal to frame 15(1) as civil and political rights.

Canadian Association for Community Living stated that all PWD want to and can live in the community. Even people with severe disabilities can live in the community and this changes the community for the better. Living in the community is made possible by services and supports, as well as by the involvement of family, community and friends. Interdependence is a better word than independence because for some PWD independence is not the goal.

WNUSP supported IDC. It is hard to believe that this body accepts the legitimacy of deprivation of liberty based on disability, whether it is solely or partially based on disability. Article 10 should not be referenced in Article 15. Both IDC and WNUSP can not accept limitations upon PWD right to live freely in the community without restrictions which do not apply to others. This is discrimination and is against international law. This Convention, which purports to promote and protect the rights of PWD, should not legitimize and reinforce discrimination against PWD. Laws target people with psychosocial disabilities for deprivation of liberty. It is important that services to support the self-determination of people with psychosocial disabilities are not defined in a medical way. Individual supports as defined by the person and unrelated to rehabilitation should be emphasized. Shelters in the community regularly require residents to take medication as a condition for living there. This is a violation of PWD rights. Article 15 should include language to prevent forced medical intervention disguised as a requirement for the receipt of services. WNUSP suggested "Access to services must not be contingent on PWD agreeing to give up fundamental civil and political rights.” WNUSP endorsed New Zealand's inclusion of civil and political rights as a basis for this Article and does not support making it contingent on Article 10. The Chair asked WNUSP to explain the reference to deprivation of liberty. WNUSP responded that it discussed deprivation of liberty based on disability because Article 15 states that PWD should not live in institutions against their will. However, language has been brought forward which includes a reference to Article 10. IDC and WNUSP do not support deprivation of liberty based on disability. In many countries, forced medical interventions take the form of economic coercion; for example, in order to live in a particular place, residents are required to take medication.

Israel Human Rights Center for PWD supported IDC. Choosing one's place of residence is a key right, but a larger issue is the assumption that not all PWD are able to live in the community. This attitude leads to continuing referrals and placements in institutions, and thus translates into the policy that not all PWD have the right to live in the community. Even if PWD are not coerced into an institution, some States give aid only to those living in institutions, and therefore they are obliged to live there. This is the reason it supports New Zealand's comment; this Article should be about moving away from institutionalization. In its present wording, Article 15 does not do this. What is missing is the right of every person to live in the community, the most fundamental human right. It suggested beginning the Article by stating that every PWD has the right to live in the community. Only after that right is ensured does freedom to choose where and with whom to live have meaning.

Arab Organization of Disabled People stated there are three fundamental principles which should be in this Article: the freedom of PWD to make decisions regarding their choice of services and the facilities they use; progressive realization should not be used as a pretext to delay implementation of the Convention; and integration and liberty are not contradictory. Liberty means the ability to make decisions about one's life, while integration means that the person is a citizen and can live within society.

PWD Australia/National Association of Community and Legal Centers supported the IDC position. The continued institutionalization of PWD is one of the greatest abuses of human rights, resulting in isolation and segregation from families, peer groups, and community. Institutionalization increases PWD disablement and susceptibility to violence, abuse and neglect, and generates fear and misunderstanding. The ability to live in and be a part of the community with supports is a fundamental human right and is a foundation for many of the other rights set forth in this Convention. Millions of PWD are institutionalized. This Convention must place an unequivocal obligation on States and non-state actors to cease the institutionalization of PWD and to create opportunities to live in and be part of the community. This Article should require States to develop and implement plans to relocate PWD from institutions, broadly defined, and to provide community supports. Therefore 15(b) needs to be strengthened to require States to eliminate institutional care rather than merely stating that PWD are not obliged to enter institutions. If institutional care is the only option, PWD will have no choice but to accept this care. Therefore institutions must be removed from the spectrum of care choices. Paragraph 15(c) needs to include provisions relating to families and children with disabilities.

Disabled People International supported IDC, PWD Australia, and others supporting autonomy. People currently living in situations of confinement need States to create transition plans to enable them to move into community living. States needs transition plans to be created with input by PWD who have personal experience and expertise to share with States Parties.

Canadian Association of Independent Living Centers supported the need to enshrine IL in this Convention. As in the Draft Declaration on Indigenous People, PWD need to not only participate in community, but to freely determine political status and economic, social, and cultural development. IL is not just deciding one's place of residence; it needs to be a broader concept. "Enable" is a better and stronger term than "facilitate." The Article attempts to list IL precepts, and may be exclusionary. It suggested adding "notwithstanding the foregoing..." so that this Article does not become out of date. The Chair asked for clarification. CAILC responded that the chapeau states "including be ensuring that" and therefore creates a list. The wording "notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, it shall include such..." may enable the list to grow in the future.

The Chair stated that the list was meant to be illustrative, not exclusive. He agreed that if this is not clear, it needs to be. There is strong opposition from PWD to institutions. Institutionalization is still the typical approach far too often. New ideas were offered, including requiring States to create transition plans and to relocate those PWD living in institutions. The presumption that disability means institutionalized needs to be examined.

Article 24 (bis): International Cooperation (IC)

The Chair noted the extensive discussion in the WG regarding IC and many delegates believed there should be a specific provision regarding IC, some favoring an article. Due to time constraints, the WG did not draft this provision. However, Annex II of the WG report, A/AC.265/2004/WG/1, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcwgreportax2.htm summarizes the issues to be considered by the AHC. Extensive consultations have been held since then.

The Facilitator for Article 24(bis) stated that during AHC3 delegates discussed several options. Based on that discussion, informal consultations were held. From these discussions, an article was drafted: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6facilitator.htm

The Chair asked for comments on this draft. He summarized the draft as having a general obligation to promote IC and take appropriate measures. The Article also offers examples of IC, including exchanges of information, efforts to increase public awareness of disability, inclusion of PWD in IC programs, technical cooperation and economic assistance, promotion of research and application of accessible technologies, provision of training courses, and initiatives to support and develop capacity building.

Thailand supported 24(c) because all development programs should be inclusive of PWD. It suggested adding "universal design" in addition to assistive technologies in 24(e) to ensure accessibility.

The EU stated that IC is a vital factor in the implementation of this Convention. Disability causes poverty and poverty causes disability, limiting access to education and employment, and leading to economic and social exclusion. The EU and its member states have cross-cutting disability policies regarding international development work. However, IC is about implementation, not a specific right of individuals. No human rights instrument deals with States' obligations toward other States. There are references to IC in other Conventions; the one cited most often is CRC, Article 4. These are general references stating that implementation horizontally will not be possible without IC; the CRC does not seek to set out obligations. A separate article on IC may hinder implementation of this Convention; it would allow States to say the reason they are not respecting the rights of PWD is because other States have not met their IC obligations. While IC is vital in implementation, the EU does not support a separate article on IC. It supports IC in general obligations which apply to all articles.

The Chair mentioned that IC appears throughout CRC and is mainstreamed in the Convention. For example, there is an obligation involving the exchange of information and technical knowledge.

Jamaica supported a distinct article on IC because such cooperation should be the result of any Convention.

The Chair stated that so far there is no disagreement that IC will be an important component of the Convention and, as the EU pointed out, many provisions in the draft are already taking place. He asked whether delegates object to any substantial elements in the draft. There are both substantive issues and procedural issues. In terms of substance, there do not seem to be any disagreements. If there are issues concerning procedural issues, delegates should be able to reach agreement.

Nigeria, on behalf of African Group, supported 24(bis).as a separate article.

El Salvador also supported 24(bis). Having a separate article on IC is relevant, suitable, timely, and bold. Social development is key to this Convention and therefore IC is fundamental to its goals. Different countries are at different levels of development; therefore, leaving out IC would result in a good Convention that is not practical. That is not what delegates want. States have shared responsibilities. Concerns about IC being used as a pretext for implementation delays are not valid. This Convention cannot ignore the asymmetrical development of States, nor States' obligations to provide citizens with protection.

Republic of Korea stated that IC can be a useful tool in successfully implementing Conventions. Article 2 of the ICCPR mentions IC. It supported paragraphs (b) and (c) of this draft Article, addressing public awareness and inclusive development, because they are important to ensuring rights. It agreed with Thailand. It questioned whether paragraph (d), dealing with technical cooperation and economic assistance, would impose binding legal obligations on member States.

Chile stated that the Preamble and general obligations mention IC and therefore it supported a separate article clearly explaining what IC means in the context of this Convention. The Article clarifies States' commitments under this Convention. Responding to the EU's concerns that IC was not about individual rights, it stated that international public law has always served to regulate the obligations of States and just a few decades ago, individuals were introduced as subjects of international law. This does not exclude a provision referring to relations among States and regulating the horizontal nature of IC. It is logical that if IC is discussed in the Preamble and under general obligations, an article would elaborate the elements of IC.

Serbia and Montenegro stated that IC is significant for countries in transition. However, this Convention deals with the human rights of individuals and not of States, the more appropriate way is to place this in general obligations. It supported the ideas in paragraph (a) and (c), but paragraph (b) is covered in Article 5 and so is redundant. It suggested that the wording in paragraph (c) be placed in General Obligations. Paragraph (d) is very ambitious and controversial and probably does not belong in this Convention. Paragraph (e) is covered in Article 4 or 13 or 19 dealing with universal design and access to information. Paragraph (f) sounds like an action plan item rather than something that should go into a Convention. Paragraph (g), dealing with capacity building, is needed but it is also an action plan item.

Yemen considered a separate article vital, and will encourage States to gain and share knowledge, rather than prevent implementation. An article on IC would emphasize that wealthy countries should help developing countries. Because many disabilities are caused by war, it suggested dedicating a percentage of sales of weapons to assisting PWD.

The Chair observed a near-consensus for a separate article. IC should not be used as an excuse for non-implementation of the Convention. He suggested adding language such as "the IC does not in any way derogate from the obligation of States to fulfill obligations under the Convention." There is consensus that IC should be in the Convention; the only issue is whether it should be addressed in a separate article. He asked for ideas about what should go in this Article if there is one.

Costa Rica agreed with EU that IC is a vital factor in implementing of this Convention, and argued that this is why a separate article is needed. The question is about the best place for the IC article, but it must be in the substantive, operative, binding part of the Convention. The issue is whether IC should be under general obligations or as a separate article.

China supported a separate article such as 24(bis) because PWD rights are not only an issue of human rights, but also of development. PWD have rights which need to be realized through social development.

Special Rapporteur on Disabilities stated that there are two positions, one arguing that IC is vital, the other saying that an article on IC is not needed. This Convention deals with the responsibilities of States toward PWD, and if IC is not addressed, States will not take responsibility under the pretext that no article requires it. This process should create an international Convention and an international organization which will create an international culture where everyone can participate to ensure implementation of its provisions. The Special Rapporteur suggested adding the principle of international responsibility in order to embody the Convention's goals.

Brazil stated that IC is broad, encompassing many elements, not just financial assistance. The list in 24(bis) includes examples of IC and should not excuse non-implementation. Language should be added to clarify this.

Peru supported a separate article on IC for reasons stated by other delegations.

Sierra Leone stated that IC was discussed extensively last year and there was consensus it was needed. Now this group needs to look at the content and scope of this Article. It is frustrated at the continuing discussion of whether IC belongs in the Convention. South-South cooperation is also important; therefore 24(d) should be amended to include the phrase "to and among developing countries.”

Mexico stated that IC is an important aspect of this convention. What is needed is a modern, nontraditional instrument offering a technical framework for IC. Many other Conventions addressed IC, including CRC and ICPR. There is precedent for IC including horizontal cooperation. Article 24(bis) modernizes the Convention, bringing concepts of IC into the 21^st century.

United States supported the EU's comments. The United States takes into account the inclusion of PWD in its international programs. A human rights instrument should focus on the inherent, inalienable rights of individual human beings. It supports a framework focusing on non-discrimination and equality of treatment. 24(bis), particularly paragraph (d), departs from this framework.

Norway stated that although resources are vital to this Convention, it prefers a general reference to IC, not a specific list. However, if the majority of delegations want more specifics, the wording in the chapeau may be sufficient.

Canada supported IC, in particular technical cooperation as well as the mainstreaming of disability issues into IC efforts. The active and effective participation of DPOs in IC is essential and Canada already involves DPOs in technical areas and capacity building. The term "stakeholders" in this draft is inadequate. This Convention should establish norms and standards to protect the rights of PWD. States Parties do have the obligation to implement these norms and standards, and IC is important in this process. It supports references to IC as in other Conventions.

India supported a separate article because it will increase the effectiveness of this Convention.

Panama favored a separate article on IC. International organizations can assist citizens in accessing equal opportunity, which is the objective of instruments such as this Convention. PWD need to be active in all IC efforts; the Convention must recognize the right to inclusion and development. Generally, the poor are excluded from developmental activities. PWD must have the right to participate in and benefit from IC.

Yemen supported the Special Rapporteur's idea of including the concept of international responsibility because a series of obligations would flow from this, affecting both States and non-state actors. Yemen suggested tabling this draft Article.

Chile stated that Article 4 of CRC mentions not only IC, but also gradual respect for all social, cultural and economic rights. Previous agreement had been reached for including this concept in this Convention. There is no contradiction between the various mentions of progressive realization, and the inclusion of a specific article dealing with IC. It agreed with the US that 24(bis)(d) may be controversial, and suggested that this subparagraph should be retained but might be reworded.

The Chair stated there is a consensus for addressing IC in a separate article; resources and information-sharing will be important in implementing this Convention. An action plan will probably result from this Convention, and this should deal with some IC issues. An article should not derogate from States obligations to implement the Convention's provisions. He proposed further consultations regarding a stand-alone article. There are no substantive differences among delegates regarding the concept of IC.

EU pointed out that IC is an important legal principle. This Convention considers established rights and identifies those that have been denied to PWD in the past. Article 24(bis) adds a right and an obligation that do not exist elsewhere. IC belongs with implementation, follow-up, and programs of action, not in a separate article. Rule 22 of the Standard Rules contains IC procedures. The EU will be unable to negotiate new rights and obligations that do not exist elsewhere. New wording could be added to the section on general obligations. The WG did not include IC because there was no consensus for it; now delegations are attempting to introduce IC. The EU opposes adding new rights in this Convention.

The Chair stated that although IC was controversial, part of the reason IC was not included in the WG text was lack of time. He suggested that requiring a plan of action which includes IC would offer a way to continue this discussion. Most states want more than a passing reference. He again asked the facilitator to undertake further consultations.

Thailand supported 24(bis)(c), particularly the disability inclusive aspect of IC. Paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) are disability-specific and related to PWD empowerment in IC. The problematic text is in (d). It suggested replacing "to developing countries” with "among countries."

The Chair asked the EU whether it implements the Standard Rules. The EU responded that the Standard Rules offer non-binding advice about how to deal with disability issues in legislative and administrative functions, and affirmed that the EU countries do follow these rules. The Special Rapporteur suggested changes to the Standard Rules last year which were not discussed by the General Assembly. The Standard Rules could be a basis for a plan of action to implement this Convention. This is where the EU would like IC to be discussed. The Chair thanked the facilitator and asked her for further consultations.

Russian Federation stated that it could accept either the inclusion of IC in Article 4, or a separate article. The problem is with paragraph (d); it needs more work. Some disagree with it, while others believe it is vital. IC means more than just technical assistance between some states; it is broader than the description in paragraph (d). It could read: "Encouraging technical cooperation, including transfer of technology.”

Qatar supported a separate article to spell out the extent, amount and type of IC. Non-implementation may cause problems, but monitoring can help determine the reasons for non-implementation.

NGO Interventions

IDC stated that among the poor, one person in every five is disabled. The mainstreaming of disability is not yet standard. The Millennium Goals do not include disability. A separate article on IC is very important. IC must be mainstreamed and programs must be created so that PWD are empowered and organizations serving PWD can build capacity. Donors and recipients must mainstream disability throughout the developmental cycle to ensure full participation and equal opportunity. Funds for IC should not create obstacles for PWD. Even now inaccessible schools and hospitals are being built with international aid funds. HIV/AIDS programs must also include PWD.

British Council of Disabled People stated that the IC article is very important and it needs to be part of the Convention. PWD are disadvantaged in all societies. PWD do need equipment, but the biggest barrier for PWD are social attitudes. Oppression is socially created. Funding for DPOs is vital. Disabled people must empower other disabled people, sharing knowledge and information, and this process takes time and money. Every country should have an active movement to implement this Convention. Article 24(bis)(d) encourages the sharing of technology. An example of the need for this is that many non-verbal people lack access to communication devices; old computers could be refurbished to give people a voice. South-to-south cooperation has had an impact on inclusive education and should be continued. Disabled people should be the leaders; many NGOs led by nondisabled people obtain international funding and use it for projects that PWD have not requested.

European Disability Forum supported the comments by the IDC. It agreed with the EU that this Article differs from other articles because it deals not with rights, but with relationships between governments. It agreed with Costa Rica that the placement of IC may be an issue, but argued that there is a need for a separate article. IC is a tool for implementation. IC is not a prerequisite for compliance, but the current wording does not imply that it is. The Article establishes a non-exhaustive list of examples of IC. Article 24(c) is key because some countries do not include disability in their development programs.

Disabled Promotion Advocacy Association of Vanuatu stated that many PWD are not present at these committee meetings because of a lack of IC. Money is not the only reason PWD cannot participate in the meetings; such involvement requires much work and education only available through IC. DPOs have worked with PWD and governments to advance the rights of PWD in various States. Outcomes will be more positive if skills, knowledge and opportunities are supported through IC. Two-thirds of PWD live in the developing world, which is one reason why the implementation of this Convention must involve a transfer of resources, knowledge, technical assistance, and policy advice to the developing world. In many cases IC will not cost a great deal of money. A strong disability movement is essential for implementation, and IC can support this.

The National Human Rights Institutions stated that IC is in many Conventions and international legal documents, beginning with the UDHR. Article 2 of the ICCPR contains an implicit and explicit reference to IC. The concept of IC is also mentioned in General Comment # 4, 30, and 31 of the Human Rights Committee’s work. It is important to institutionalize IC so that PWD obtain rights because no single entity knows everything about disability. This Article must be backed by a mechanism to facilitate IC. It agrees with the EU that IC should be part of the general obligations or at the end near the monitoring provision. IC is an important part of this Convention.

The Session was adjourned.

The Sixth Ad Hoc Committee Daily Summaries is a public service by RI*, a global network promoting the Rights, Inclusion and Rehabilitation of people with disabilities. RI extends its sincere gratitude to the Governments of Norway, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand for their generous support towards this project.

The Daily Summaries are translated into Arabic by Landmine Survivors Network, into Chinese by the National Secretariat of RI China, into French by Handicap-International, into Russian by the Russian Disability NGO Perspektiva and into Spanish by the Inter American Institute on Disability. The translations into Chinese, Russian and Spanish are facilitated by RI.

The Daily Summaries are available online at http://www.riglobal.org/un/index.html in MSWord; http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6summary.htm; www.worldenable.net; and www.ishr.ch

Reporters for the 6^th Session are Roisin Dermody, Marianne Schulze, Tina Singleton, Robin Stephens; Editors are Laura Hershey and Zahabia Adamaly. Please forward any corrections or comments to Zahabia_a@hotmail.com.

Anyone wishing to disseminate the Summaries and/or translate them into additional languages is encouraged to do so, with the request that you please retain the above crediting language - thank you.

---