The Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities

Training Guide
Professional Training Series No. 19
New York and Geneva !"1!

Note
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United
Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
*
* *
Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with
figures. Mention of such a figure indicates a reference to a United Nations document.
!"#"#T"$%
& '($' United Nations
)ll worldwide rights reserved
Contents
Page
Professional Training Series No. 19........................................................................................ i
New York and Geneva, 2012................................................................................................... i
ABOUT T! T"A#N#NG GU#$!.............................................................................................%
&O$U'! 1........................................................................................................................... 10
&O$U'! 2........................................................................................................................... 22
&O$U'! (........................................................................................................................... %1
&O$U'! %........................................................................................................................... )1
&O$U'! )........................................................................................................................... *(
&O$U'! +........................................................................................................................... ,,
&O$U'! *........................................................................................................................... 99
&O$U'! ,......................................................................................................................... 119

(
#$%&T T'( TR#)N)NG G&)D(
1. $a*kground
The United Nations *eneral )ssembly adopted the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons
with ,isabilities and its -ptional #rotocol in '((. as a means of improving respect for the
rights of persons with disabilities, who, according to the latest figures, comprise some $/ per
cent of the world0s population. Since '((., ratification of the +onvention and -ptional
#rotocol has proceeded at a rapid pace. owever, 1nowledge about the +onvention and
how to implement and monitor it has not necessarily 1ept up. This in turn has led to an
increase in re2uests for training courses to build capacities of national sta1eholders3
representatives of *overnment, civil society, national human rights institutions 4N!5s6 and
others.
The -ffice of the United Nations igh +ommissioner for uman !ights 4-+!6 has
developed this Training Guide in response. 5t see1s to provide basic information on a rights7
based approach to disability, on the fundamental elements of the +onvention and its
-ptional #rotocol, and on the processes and issues underlying their ratification,
implementation and monitoring. +onse2uently, the materials are particularly appropriate for
introductory courses on the +onvention.
The materials were first prepared in '($( and revised over '($$. 5n )ugust '($$, -+!
held a validation course comprising participants from United Nations human rights
presences, the United Nations ,epartment of 8conomic and Social )ffairs and
representatives of the 5nternational ,isability )lliance. -n this basis, the Guide was finali9ed
and published.
!. %verview of the Training Guide
+a, -hat is this Training Guide.
The Training Guide is for facilitators of training courses on the +onvention on the !ights of
#ersons with ,isabilities and its -ptional #rotocol. 5t can be used to develop a training
course on the +onvention and"or the -ptional #rotocol, but is also helpful as a general
information resource on these instruments. The Training Guide promotes interactive training
sessions, intended ideally for relatively small groups of maximum '( participants, and
comprises a mix of computer slide presentations and group activities intended to encourage
dialogue and exchange between facilitators and participants and among the participants
themselves.
+b, -ho/ is the Training Guide for.
The Training Guide is primarily for training facilitators and others who already have
1nowledge of the international human rights system and are called upon to provide training
on the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities. 5n other words, the Guide
assumes some 1nowledge of human rights standards, terminology and mechanisms but not
necessarily 1nowledge of the +onvention itself. The Training Guide assumes that any
training course will be underta1en by a lead facilitator, who would ideally be assisted.
%
+*, -ho is the target audien*e of the training /odules.
The target audience of the training modules is broad. 5t could be any individual or
representative of an organi9ation or institution that is involved in promoting, implementing
and monitoring the +onvention. The principal beneficiaries of the training courses are
therefore:
*overnment representatives, particularly focal points and coordination mechanisms
related to the +onvention
#arliamentarians
;udges
!epresentatives of United Nations speciali9ed agencies, funds and programmes
!epresentatives of national human rights institutions
#ersons with disabilities and their representative organi9ations
+ivil society organi9ations
Media representatives
#rofessionals in related areas such as health, education, support services and so on.
+d, 'ow to use this Training Guide
The sessions are based on the training methodology adopted by the -+! Methodology,
8ducation and Training Section. 8ach module comprises four principal documents:
The note for the facilitator explains the se2uence of the training session, the
documents re2uired, bac1ground reading as well as tips for the presentation of the
computer slides<
The computer slide presentation provides a series of slides to help the facilitator
present the various concepts in the module<
The group activity note provides explanations of the group activity as well as the
particular re2uirements for the activity, such as venue and materials.
The sessions generally follow a se2uence of computer slide presentation incorporating
2uestions and answers, followed by a group activity.
The methodology underlying the Training Guide is interactive and promotes a participatory
approach. 5t is important to respect this approach throughout. =acilitators should use the
computer slide presentation to encourage a discussion and exchange of information and
experience with and among participants. The facilitator should avoid a one7way monologue
presentation style where the facilitator imparts information and the participants ta1e note.
The Training Guide see1s to fill in any 1nowledge gaps facilitators might face and in this
sense is a support for facilitators before the session. owever, facilitators should avoid using
)
the Training Guide as a prop during the sessions to ensure that the presentation does not
turn into a lecture rather than a discussion with the participants.
=acilitators should adapt the materials in the Training Guide to suit each specific audience.
Not every training course needs to cover all eight modules, nor do the modules need to be
presented in a particular order or all aspects of each module covered. The important issue to
bear in mind is that the facilitator provides a training course that meets the needs of the
participants.
Similarly, the facilitator should prepare the course in advance with examples and materials
which are relevant to the country and region where the course ta1es place. The facilitator
therefore needs to learn about the region, identify the main advances and challenges facing
the +onvention0s ratification, implementation and monitoring, and find locally relevant cases
and situations. Sometimes materials and group activities may have to be changed
completely to suit the context.
0. Planning 1our *ourse
+a, Carr1 out a training needs assess/ent to find out what 2arti*i2ants need fro/
the *ourse
1
) training needs assessment enables the facilitator to fully understand the needs of potential
learners and the context in which they wor1, in order to ma1e informed decisions related to
the design of the training course. ) training needs assessment will also help inform
decisions about the most appropriate content, methods, techni2ues and time frame of the
planned training course.
5t should enable the facilitator to gather the necessary information to build an ade2uate
picture of the context of disability rights< develop a profile of potential learners< and identify
capacity gaps or needs of learners in relation to promoting a rights7based approach to
disability.
) pre7course 2uestionnaire should ideally be sent to the participants one month before the
course. This information can help design and fine tune the course plan"agenda. The pre7
course 2uestionnaire serves multiple purposes. 5t:
5nforms course design and informs facilitators of their audience
8ncourages participants to engage with the course before their arrival and to do
some preparatory homewor1
#rovides a baseline of participants0 capacities, which will their increase in 1nowledge,
experience and confidence to be trac1ed
+ontributes to the sharing of experience throughout the training course.
The pre7course 2uestionnaire should include 2uestions such as:
1
=or more information on training needs assessment, see 82uitas > 5nternational +entre for uman
!ights 8ducation and -+!, Evaluating Human Rights Training Activities: A Handbook for Human
Rights Educators, #rofessional Training Series No. $? 4*eneva and Montreal, '($$6.
+
@hat do participants 1now about disability rights and the move to a rights7based
approach to disabilityA
@hat do participants 1now about the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with
,isabilities and its -ptional #rotocolA
=ind out how much experience the participants have, how confident they are and
how comfortable they are with the subBect matter.
ow do they expect to increase their 1nowledge and understanding of disability
rightsA
@hat practical s1ills do they want to developA
@hat have they already done, what do they want to focus on now when it comes to
disability rightsA
@hat outputs3plans and analysis3do participants need from the courseA @hat
level of detail is re2uired and what is achievableA
@ho will be responsible for ta1ing the outputs forward and what is their capacityA
+b, Sele*t the right sessions
) training course will always comprise an opening and closing session, but the rest of the
agenda should reflect the participants0 specific needs.
@hich modules to focus on will depend on the participants0 level of understanding of
disability rights and the extent to which they have already developed their strategies to ratify,
implement and"or monitor the +onvention. There will generally no be sufficient time to cover
all eight modules so some will have to be left out. )t the same time, particular aspects of
some modules might be left out 4if participants are already aware of the information6, while in
other situations, additional slides and materials might be necessary or activities adapted.
The facilitator should read through all the materials first to decide what to use and what to
amend or tailor, depending on the participants0 needs.
+*, Draw u2 a *ourse agenda
-nce the facilitator has selected the modules relevant to the participants0 needs, he or she
should develop the agenda. The notes for the facilitators in the Guide can help. They provide
indicative times for the computer slide presentations and for the group activities, which the
facilitator should adapt in the light of the participants0 capacities as gleaned from their
responses to the 2uestionnaire. 5f the facilitator is wor1ing with interpreters, around C( per
cent of extra time will be necessary and should be reflected in the agenda.
+d, Sele*t the training tea/
The selection of trainers and resource persons should be based on the following criteria:
8xpertise in the subBect matter and experience with the target audience
*
)bility to apply the interactive training methodology of the training pac1age
#rofessional credibility and appropriate reputation among other practitioners.
5n choosing the training team, consideration should be given to gender balance and to the
participation of persons with different types of disability. 5n addition, when training a
particular target audience, it is very helpful to include in the training team one of its members
who is in a position to establish a good rapport with the learners. =inally, the training team
should be complemented by experts in human rights and"or disability rights.
+e, Gather additional infor/ation
The facilitator should ensure he or she has:
Sufficient bac1ground information about specific targets, policy processes and power
structures 4which might include the use of local resource persons6
5nformation on the status of ratification, implementation and monitoring of the
+onvention in the country and region
5nformation on challenges and opportunities facing the rights of persons with
disabilities in the country and region
5nformation on domestic case law, legislation and media stories where relevant
5nformation on the institutional context in which the participants wor1
+f, S2e*ifi* language 2re2aration
5f the course is ta1ing place with interpretation, the facilitator should be sure to consult
people who 1now the local terminology related to disability and how to translate some 1ey
terms from 8nglish into local languages, as there is always a direct translation.
+g, Conte3t4s2e*ifi* 2re2aration
This Guide should be adapted to different socio7political contexts, including the most
pressing developmental and human rights challenges. @here possible, local resource
persons who are well prepared and briefed should be integrated in the course planning
process and the agenda.
+h, #**essibilit1
Thin1 about accessibility issues prior to the course. 5s the venue accessibleA 5s the lunch
area accessibleA )re there accessible toiletsA )re course materials accessibleA )nd so on.
@hen thin1ing about accessibility, remember to thin1 of different disabilities so that, for
example, the course is accessible not only to persons with physical disabilities, but also
those with visual or hearing impairments.
+i, (valuation
'
2
=or detailed practical guidance on evaluating human rights training activities, see Evaluating Human
Rights Training Activities: A Handbook for Human Rights Educators.
,
8valuation provides the training team with information about the impact of the training in
relation to the goals that the team set out to achieve. 8valuation should be incorporated
throughout the training course, including during planning, design, delivery and follow7up.
8valuation can help facilitators answer some important 2uestions about the results of their
training activities, for example: why are we offering this trainingA ,oes the content of the
training respond to the needs of the learnersA @hat did the learners learnA @hat actions will
the learners ta1e as a resultA @ill the learners apply what they have learned in their wor1A
ow will their wor1 contribute to change in the broader community"societyA
9
5%D&6( 1
-'#T )S D)S#$)6)TY.
)ntrodu*tion
Module $ explains the concept of disability, a fundamental step in understanding why the
+onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities was necessary. The module identifies
the modern concept of Dhow disability wor1sE and then places this in the historical context of
various approaches to disability based on charity or on the medical diagnosis of
impairments. The module examines some of the latter0s conse2uences and then introduces
the human rights approach, which paves the way for module '. There is some duplication of
slides in modules $ and ', because module $ could potentially be presented independently
of module ' or similar concepts could be raised in both modules to reinforce them,
depending on the training course and the participants. The facilitator can always pic1 the
slides that fit the presentation.
'ow disabilit1 works
Many people see disability as a condition that is inherent in the person3for example, a
medical condition that re2uires the person to be in a wheelchair or to ta1e medication.
owever,>as becomes clear in this module, the modern concept of disability perceives
disability as an interaction between an individual0s personal condition 4such as being in a
wheelchair or having a visual impairment6 and environmental factors 4such as negative
attitudes or inaccessible buildings6 which together lead to disability and affect an individual0s
participation in society. =or example:
Feing in a wheelchair 4personal factor6 combined with living in a city with accessible
buildings 4environmental factor6 leads to participation in the community on the same
terms as someone who is not in a wheelchair: there is little or no disability.
aving an intellectual impairment 4personal factor6 combined with a belief in the
community that persons with intellectual disabilities lac1 the capacity to vote
4negative environmental factor6 leads to exclusion from society and denial of the right
to vote: there is a disability.
#ersonal factors are multilayered and can be both physical and socioeconomic. =or
example:
Physical factors: gender, ethnicity, impairment 4physical, visual, hearing, intellectual,
mental6, si9e and weight, and so on<
Socioeconomic factors: wealth, class, inclusion in society, education level and so on.
#hysical factors can interact to exacerbate disability or alleviate it. =or example, someone
with a physical disability who is wealthy might be able to access tertiary education and so
find a Bob. This might increase participation in society and alleviate disability to an extent.
10
8nvironmental factors can relate to at least four sub7factors as follows:
Accessibility: hilly or flat cities, accessibility of buildings 4ramps, toilets, braille signs
etc.6, accessible information 4websites, documents in easy7to7read formats6,
accessible public transport, etc.
egal!policy: existence of protection from discrimination compared with denial of
rights on the basis of disability, pro7poor policies, policies that refer explicitly to
disability rights compared to policies that ignore persons with disabilities, etc.
Socioeconomic: rural"urban 4present different accessibility issues6, rich"poor, positive
community awareness of disability, openness of society to change, etc.
Services: inclusive services or segregated services 4health, education, youth
centres6, community7based rehabilitation 4+F!6 services, social support services,
affordability of services, etc.
8nvironmental factors can also combine to exacerbate or alleviate disability. @ith the
increasing awareness of disability, there is often a mix of both positive and negative
environmental factors. =or example, a school might be made accessible by including ramp
access. owever, public transport is still not accessible, which means that a child with a
physical impairment cannot ma1e it to school, in spite of the openness of the school
environment.
)ll these factors combine to determine the extent to which an individual can participate in
society and, as a result, the extent to which disability exists.
Different a22roa*hes to disabilit1
,ifferent approaches to disability exist in the world, some being more dominant in some
parts of the world than in others.
The charity approach
The charity approach treats persons with disabilities as passive obBects of 1ind acts or of
welfare payments rather than as empowered individuals with rights to participate in political
and cultural life and in their development. @hat characteri9es this approach is that persons
with disabilities are not considered able to provide for themselves because of their
impairment. +onse2uently, society provides for them. No environmental conditions are
considered under this approach< disability is an individual problem. =rom this perspective,
persons with disabilities are the target of pity and they depend on the goodwill of society. 5n
addition, persons with disabilities depend on duty bearers: charity houses, homes,
foundations, churches, to which society delegates policies on disability and responsibility
towards persons with disabilities. Under this model, persons with disabilities are
disempowered, not in control of their lives and have little or no participation. They are
considered a burden on society. Fecause charity comes from goodwill, the 2uality of DcareE
is not necessarily consistent or even important.
5f society0s responses to disability are limited to care and assistance for persons with
disabilities through charity and welfare programmes, opportunities for advancement
are very limited. The ris13as with the medical approach3is that persons with
11
disabilities will remain at the margins of society. This approach does not support their
participation.
5f persons with disabilities continue to be considered as DunfortunateE, re2uiring
compassion, depending on contributions and assistance and on the goodwill of
others, their opportunities for empowerment become very limited.
The charity approach increases the distance between persons with disabilities and society
rather than promoting e2uality and inclusion.
The medical approach
5n the medical model, the focus is very much on the person0s impairment, which is
represented as the source of ine2uality. The needs and rights of the person are absorbed or
identified with the medical treatment provided to 4or imposed on6 the patient. 5n the medical
model, individuals can be DfixedE through medicine or rehabilitation to get bac1 to society.
#articularly for persons with mental impairments, the medical treatment can be an
opportunity for a DbadE patient 4persons with mental disabilities are often considered
dangerous6 to become a DgoodE patient. To be considered able to provide for themselves,
persons with disabilities have to be DcuredE of the impairment or at least the impairment has
to be reduced as much as possible. No environmental conditions are considered under this
approach and disability is an individual problem. #ersons with disabilities are sic1 and have
to be fixed to reach normality.
5f disability is handled primarily as a medical problem, experts such as doctors, psychiatrists
and nurses have extensive power over persons with impairments< the institution0s staff ta1e
decisions for the patients, whose aspirations will be dealt with within a medical framewor1. 5f
complete rehabilitation is not possible, persons with disabilities will not be able to go bac1 to
society and will remain in institutions. )chievements and failures experienced within the
walls of the institution will be understood as related to the impairment and, as a result,
Bustified. 5n the worst cases, such an approach can legitimate exploitation, violence and
abuse.
This model is often mixed with the charity approach. =or example, charities raise funds for
and run rehabilitation facilities. The duty bearers in this model are the medical industry and
the State. @hen combined with a charity approach, charity houses, homes, foundations and
religious institutions also play an important role. Under this model, persons with disabilities
are disempowered, not in control of their lives and have little or no participation. The medical
industry, professionals and charities usually represent the interests of persons with
disabilities as they are seen as possessing the 1nowledge of what is in the best interests of
their patients.
The social approach
The social approach introduces a very different thin1ing: disability is recogni9ed as the
conse2uence of the interaction of the individual with an environment that does not
accommodate that individual0s differences. This lac1 of accommodation impedes the
individual0s participation in society. 5ne2uality is not due to the impairment, but to the inability
of society to eliminate barriers challenging persons with disabilities. This model puts the
person at the centre, not his"her impairment, recogni9ing the values and rights of persons
with disabilities as part of society.
Moving from the medical to the social model does not in any way deny the importance of
care, advice and assistance, sometimes prolonged, provided by medical experts and
medical institutions. 5n many cases persons with disabilities re2uire medical treatment and
12
care, exams, constant monitoring and medicines. 5n the social model, they continue going to
hospitals and centres providing specific treatment if re2uired. @hat is different is the overall
approach to treatment: it responds to the expectations of the patient, not those of the
institution. The social model attributes to nurses, doctors, psychiatrics and administrators
new roles and identities. Their relation with persons with disabilities will be based on a
dialogue. The doctor will not be on a pedestal, but on the side of the person with disabilities.
82uality starts in the hospital, not outside. =reedom, dignity, trust, evaluation and self7
evaluation are all features of the social model.
@ith the social model, disability is not a Dmista1eE of society but an element of its diversity.
,isability is a social construct3the result of the interaction in society between personal
factors and environmental factors. ,isability is not an individual problem but the outcome of
a wrong organi9ation of society. )s a conse2uence, society should restructure policies,
practices, attitudes, environmental accessibility, legal provisions and political organi9ations
and therefore dismantle the social and economic barriers that prevent full participation of
persons with disabilities. 5t opposes the charity and medical approach by establishing that all
policies and laws should be designed with the involvement of persons with disabilities. The
duty bearers under this model are the State3involving all ministries and branches of
government3as well as society. Under this model, persons with disabilities are empowered,
in control of their lives and enBoy full participation on an e2ual basis with others. The burden
of disability is not on them but on society.
Human rights approach
The human rights approach to disability builds on the social approach by ac1nowledging
persons with disabilities as subBects of rights and the State and others as having
responsibilities to respect these persons. 5t treats the barriers in society as discriminatory
and provides avenues for persons with disabilities to complain when they are faced with
such barriers. +onsider the right to vote. ) person who is blind has the right to vote Bust as
anyone else in society. Get, if voting material is not in accessible formats such as Fraille and
the person cannot ta1e a trusted individual into the voting booth to help indicate her
preferred candidate, the person who is blind cannot vote. ) human rights approach to
disability recogni9es the lac1 of voting material and the inability to have assistance in voting
as discriminatory, and places a responsibility on the State to ensure that such discriminatory
barriers are removed. 5f not, the person should be able to ma1e an official complaint.
) rights7based approach to disability is not driven by compassion, but by dignity and
freedom. 5t see1s ways to respect, support and celebrate human diversity by creating the
conditions that allow meaningful participation by a wide range of persons, including persons
with disabilities. 5nstead of focusing on persons with disabilities as passive obBects of
charitable acts, it see1s to assist people to help themselves so that they can participate in
society, in education, at the wor1place, in political and cultural life, and defend their rights
through accessing Bustice.
The human rights approach is an agreement and a commitment by persons with disabilities,
States and the international human rights system to put into practice some primary aspects
of the social approach. This approach is binding to all States that have ratified the
+onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities. States must eliminate and prevent
discriminatory actions. The human rights approach establishes that all policies and laws
should be designed with the involvement of persons with disability, mainstreaming disability
in all aspects of political action. =ollowing this model, no DspecialE policies should be
designed for persons with disabilities, notwithstanding the particularities needed to comply
with the principle of full participation.
1(
The main duty bearer under this model, in which society delegates the policies on disability,
is the State > involving all of its ministries and branches. There are certain provisions that
involve the private sector and there is a specific role for civil society, in particular persons
with disability and the organi9ations that represent them. Under this model, persons with
disabilities have rights and instruments that can empower them to claim their rights. They
have the tools to be in control of their lives and fully participate on e2ual terms with others.
The human rights approach provides that persons with disabilities are closely involved in
policyma1ing by law.
"hich approach is dominant today#
The charity approach is the oldest of the four, followed by the medical approach. The social
and human rights approaches are more recent. Get, all continue till today. 5n spite of the
adoption of the +onvention, the charity and medical models are still very prevalent3even
among the human rights community.
The *onse7uen*es of the *harit1 and /edi*al a22roa*hes to disabilit1
Fy approaching persons with disabilities as DobBects of pityE or Dproblems to be fixedE, the
burden of disability falls on the individual and, as a result, social transformation is virtually
impossible. Moreover, it can give rise to certain social norms which can ma1e it even more
difficult for persons with disabilities to participate in society and enBoy their rights.
Perception that persons $ith disabilities are %special&
The main difference between the medical"charity approach on the one hand and the
social"human rights approach to disability on the other is reflected in the difference between
DspecialE and DinclusiveE treatment. The term DspecialE often arises in connection with
persons with disabilities: children with special needs, special schools, special services,
special institutions. Get, DspecialtyE is exactly what the +onvention distances itself from.
Feing special in the context of disability is not necessarily rewarding< it may lead to
marginali9ation.
Ta1e special schools for example: special schools enable persons with disabilities to interact
only with other persons with disabilities or with certain DprofessionalsE. This forces them to
live a situation which is not realistic since it does not reflect the diversity of the society.
@hom does this benefit thenA #ersons with disabilitiesA #ersons without disabilitiesA 5t is
difficult to see the benefits of actions"decisions aimed at 1eeping human beings separate.
uman beings are social beings, and children have the right to study and play together.
,iversity and inclusion must be the norm.
) segregated school is not a genuine mirror of society. ,iversity is very limited there.
#roblems discussed among DspecialE students and Dspeciali9edE teachers are influenced by
a setting focused on disability. The confrontation of ideas and opinions lac1s a more diverse
audience, including persons without disabilities not challenged by physical or attitudinal
barriers.
The right to education is an important right, interrelated with other human rights. )t school,
persons with and without disabilities learn what society0s expectations and opportunities are.
They learn theories, s1ills and discipline< they elaborate values they may have developed in
their circle of family and friends< and they develop new values. The school itself is a
community where children share the same timetables, venues and obligations. Fy interacting
with teachers and others, pupils learn to live in a society independently and in constant
interaction with other members. School represents an embryonic opportunity for
1%
independent living that later in life will include gainful employment, participation in political
and public life, home and family, access to Bustice, as well as business opportunities. The
diversity of the classroom offers a uni2ue opportunity to discuss human rights and opinions.
)nother example of how persons with disabilities have been perceived as DspecialE under the
medical"charity approach concerns institutionali9ation. #ersons with disabilities3in particular
persons with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities3have often been committed by force
to psychiatric institutions, away from the community and without freedom to choose their
medical treatments.
Under the human rights approach, persons with disabilities have the right to liberty on an
e2ual basis with others, and deprivation of liberty cannot be Bustified on the basis of
disability. =orced institutionali9ation or hospitali9ation on the basis of disability is prohibited.
No one should be institutionali9ed against his"her will unless the reasons for such
institutionali9ation apply to others in the community without disabilities 4for example,
imprisonment as a result of committing a crime and being sentenced by a Budge6.
#ersons with disabilities have the right to live in the community, and to choose where and
with whom to live, on an e2ual basis with others. 5ndependent living does not necessarily
mean living alone. Many people live in constant contact with others, including in the same
house. #eople live with other members of the same family, with friends and with colleagues.
Such cohabitation is usually seen as independent living.
-nce a person can ma1e his"her own decisions3including where and with whom to live3
and to be respected for these decisions, that person is living independently. The same goes
for persons with disabilities. Support is still possible while living independently. #ersons with
disabilities have the right to receive support if they re2uest it. 5ndependent living constitutes
a frame for the enBoyment of several human rights: the right to ade2uate housing, the right to
participate in public and political affairs, the right to privacy, the right to free movement, the
right to vote, etc.
Perception that persons $ith disabilities are dangerous
istorically, persons with mental and intellectual disabilities have been mistreated and
neglected in most societies. They have been subBected to such atrocities as *overnment7
sponsored hallucinogenic drug experiments on un1nowing individuals, forced treatment,
electric as well as insulin shoc1 therapies, and even attempted genocide during the Second
@orld @ar.
Today, stigma and myths around mental illness persist and the result is often discrimination
and exclusion. Stereotypes of persons with mental"intellectual disabilities ma1e them appear
unintelligent, DweirdE, unable to wor1, with no chance of recovery, unpredictable and
dangerous.
News reporting on violent acts"crimes committed by Dmentally ill offendersE usually has a
strong impact on readers< it reinforces the belief that persons with psychological disabilities
are dangerous.
Such generali9ations not only sustain a sense of ris1, lac1 of safety and general discomfort
in society"the community, they also affect the self7perception of persons with mental and
intellectual disabilities. Hac1 of self7esteem often exacerbates stigma and myths. )ccording
to organi9ations such as the @orld Networ1 of Users and Survivors of #sychiatry, Done of the
greatest losses we experience is the loss of our sense of who we are in the context of our
1)
community. )n experience of forced treatment causes us to abandon our lives, and we
return to a community that sees us as dangerous, vulnerable, volatile and Iill0.E
C
,iscrimination against persons with mental and intellectual disabilities has created a class of
people who have been systematically disempowered and impoverished. Fecause of the
stigma surrounding mental illness, many persons with disabilities become homeless,
unemployed, undereducated and socially isolated and lac1 ade2uate health care or they are
1ept secluded under strong medication.
Most persons with mental and intellectual disabilities are not violent, nor are they more li1ely
to commit violent actions or crimes than those without mental disabilities. #ersons with
psychological disabilities are as intelligent as everyone else and are able to function li1e
others in a wide variety of settings.
Saying that persons with mental disabilities are not more violent than people without such
disabilities recogni9es the existence of violence as a social problem, not as a
mental"psychological one. 5t also ac1nowledges mental illness as being caused by
environmental and social factors, and not merely by genetic and"or organic ones.
Perception that persons $ith disabilities are superhuman
The media often portray persons with disabilities as somehow superhuman. @hile ostensibly
attempting to promote positive images of them 4which is of course welcome6, the result can
be the same as with other myths, namely that persons with disabilities become one7
dimensional. They are courageous, powerful and somehow able to overcome a great
difficulty3namely, a disability. @hen analysed more closely, this potentially positive image
also implies that the maBority of persons with disabilities have difficult and miserable lives
4with most having to rely on charity6. ,isability becomes an 4almost6 insurmountable
difficulty. The hero is presented as the person who was able to overcome the plight of many.
The thing to bear in mind is that a person with a disability is a human being with strengths
and wea1nesses, Bust li1e anyone else. 5t is important that persons with disabilities are
portrayed in a positive way in public, particularly through the media, and this is referred to in
the +onvention 4art. ?, awareness7raising6. This includes highlighting the lives of persons
with disabilities that have achieved a significant level in politics, sport, literature or any other
field of endeavour. owever, overcoming a disability need not be this person0s only
achievement. 5nstead, the person has managed to overcome a whole range of barriers
facing anyone see1ing the spotlight, e.g., excellence in education, competition from
colleagues, expectations from the community or family and so on.
Perception that persons $ith disabilities are a burden
5n contrast to the myth of the superhuman, persons with disabilities are often portrayed as a
burden3to society, to family, to friends. This is the flip side of the superhuman approach
and, again, intrinsically related to the charity approach to disability. This perception persists
particularly in the media. ow many times have we seen an apparently sensitive
documentary on television which concentrates on the parents of a child with a disability, the
struggles those parents are going through, the difficulties they face due to the attitudes to
their child, the way their lives have changed and so on. The focus on the parents0 struggles
is generally not intended to promote a negative myth about persons with disabilities, but the
immediate effect is three7fold. =irst, in this case the child with a disability, her concerns,
struggles, interests and dreams tend to melt into the bac1ground and becomes secondary.
Second, as a result, the child appears one7dimensional and the cause of her parents0
(

'mplementation (anual for
the )nited *ations +onvention on the Rights of Persons $ith ,isabilities 4=ebruary
'((?6, p. C'.
1+
distress. Third, there seems to be little way out for the child. +onse2uently, negative myths
and stereotypes emerge.
This can have negative implications for persons with disabilities. =or example:
They might believe that they are indeed a burden<
They might come to expect that they are not meant to live independently<
#arents and teachers might not expect them to be self7sufficient and accept
responsibility for carrying the burden<
The combination of the beliefs of persons with disabilities and parents, teachers and
other carers might then reinforce the myth that persons with disabilities are a burden.
)ll of this can combine to prevent social change.
8e1 2rin*i2les of a hu/an rights a22roa*h to disabilit1
PR)NC)P6( D)SC&SS)%N
!espect for the inherent dignity
and individual autonomy,
including the freedom to ma1e
one0s own choices, and the
independence of persons
5nherent dignity refers to the worth of every person. @hen
the dignity of persons with disabilities is respected, his or
her experiences and opinions are valued and are formed
without fear of physical, psychological or emotional harm.
5ndividual autonomy means to be in charge of one0s own
life and to have the freedom to ma1e one0s own choices.
!espect for individual autonomy means that persons with
disabilities have, on an e2ual basis with others, reasonable
life choices, are subBect to minimum interference with their
private life and can ma1e their own decisions, with
ade2uate support if re2uired.
Non7discrimination Non7discrimination is a fundamental principle of all human
rights treaties and the basis of the +onvention on the
!ights of #ersons with ,isabilities. 5t essentially prohibits
discrimination against anyone on the basis of disability,
given that discrimination prevents people enBoying their
rights on an e2ual basis with others. owever, today, non7
discrimination is understood as a much broader principle
which encompasses not only prohibiting discriminatory
acts but also ta1ing steps to protect against potential future
discrimination and hidden discrimination and promoting
e2uality.
=ull and effective participation
and inclusion in society
The concepts of full and effective participation and of
inclusion mean that society, both in its public and in its
private dimensions, is organi9ed so as to enable all people
to ta1e part fully. They mean that society and relevant
actors value persons with disabilities and recogni9e them
as e2ual participants3for example, in processes related to
1*
decisions that affect their lives or in the freedom to run for
public office. #articipation goes beyond consultation and
includes meaningful involvement in activities and decision7
ma1ing processes, the possibility to voice opinions, to
influence and to complain when participation is denied.
5nclusion re2uires an accessible, barrier7free physical and
social environment. 5t is a two7way process that promotes
the acceptance of persons with disabilities and their
participation, and encourages society to open up and be
accessible to persons with disabilities.
!espect for difference and
acceptance of persons with
disabilities as part of human
diversity and humanity
!espect for difference involves accepting others in a
context of mutual understanding. ,espite some visible and
apparent differences between people, all have the same
rights and dignity. 5n relation to disability, it involves
accepting persons with disabilities for who they are, rather
than pitying them or seeing them as a problem that needs
to be fixed.
82uality of opportunity 82uality of opportunity is closely lin1ed with non7
discrimination. 5t refers to a situation where society and the
environment are made available to all, including persons
with disabilities. 82uality of opportunity does not always
mean that the exact same opportunities are made
available to all, as treating everyone the same might result
in ine2ualities. !ather it recogni9es difference between
people and ensures that, despite this difference, everyone
has the same opportunity to enBoy rights.
)ccessibility Ma1ing accessibility 4and e2uality6 a reality means
dismantling the barriers that hinder the effective enBoyment
of human rights by persons with disabilities. )ccessibility
enables persons with disabilities to live independently and
to participate fully in all aspects of life. )ccessibility is
important in all areas of life, but in particular in the physical
environment, such as buildings, roads, housing and so on,
transport, information and communications, and other
facilities and services open to or provided to the public.
82uality between men and
women
The principle of e2uality between men and women
indicates that the same rights should be expressly
recogni9ed for men and women on an e2ual footing, and
suitable measures should be ta1en to ensure that women
have the opportunity to exercise their rights. ,espite the
overlap with the principle of non7discrimination, the
reiteration of e2uality between men and women is
expressly included in treaties, especially because there
are still many preBudices preventing its full application.
!espect for the evolving !espect for the evolving capacities of children is a
1,
capacities of children with
disabilities and for their right to
preserve their identities
principle set out in the +onvention on the !ights of the
+hild. 5t should be seen as a positive and enabling process
that supports the child0s maturation, autonomy and self7
expression. Through this process, children progressively
ac2uire 1nowledge, competences and understanding,
including about their rights. Their participation in decision7
ma1ing processes that affect them, including their right to
preserve their identities, should be expanded over time in
step with this evolution.
The Convention9s disabilit1 *on*e2t
The +onvention preamble states that disabilit1 is an evolving *on*e2t. Nevertheless, it
does reflect a social model of disability as it clarifies that disability results from the interaction
between persons with impairments and external barriers that hinders their participation in
society 4preambular para. 4e66.
5n this perspective, the framewor1 reflected in the +onvention is built on the understanding
that it is the external environment, and the attitudes that are reflected in its construction, that
plays a central role in creating the condition termed Ddisability.E This contrasts sharply with
the medical model of disability, which is instead built on the concept of the Dbro1en bodyE,
with disability being the obvious result of a physical, mental or sensory deficiency of the
person.
Fecause of this approach, the notion of :disabilit1; *annot be rigid but rather depends on
the prevailing environment and varies from one society to the next. @hile the +onvention
recogni9es disability as an evolving concept, it clearly endorses the understanding of it as a
social construct, when it states that disability Dresults from the interaction between persons
with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and
effective participation in society on an e2ual basis with othersE.
5n line with this understanding, the Convention does not 2rovide a *losed definition of
who persons with disabilities are, but states that they DincludeE those who have long7term
physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various
barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an e2ual basis with
others 4art. $, purpose6.
Some important elements to consider are:
4a6 (volving v. fi3ed *on*e2t. The +onvention recogni9es that DdisabilityE is an
evolving concept resulting from attitudinal and environmental barriers. +onse2uently,
the notion of DdisabilityE is not rigid and can be adapted to the prevailing environment
in a particular society 4the focus will be on the type of attitudinal and environmental
barriers present in those societies and ways to overcome them6<
4b6 Disabilit1 not as a /edi*al 2roble/ but as an intera*tion between an
i/2air/ent and the surrounding environ/ent. The focus of the +onvention is not
on disability as a medical problem< for the +onvention, persons become disabled
when they clash with an unwelcoming or inaccessible environment. #ersons with
disabilities do not re2uired to be DfixedE before accessing an environment 4society6< it
is instead the environment that needs to be uniformly open to all its members. 5t does
19
so by dismantling attitudinal and environmental barriers so that everyone can actively
participate and enBoy the full range of rights.
4c6 The Convention in*ludes all disabilities. The +onvention does not restrict
coverage to particular persons< rather, it identifies persons with long7term physical,
mental, intellectual and sensory disabilities as its beneficiaries. The reference to
DincludeE in article $ could therefore extend the application of the +onvention to all
persons with disabilities, e.g., those with short7term disabilities or persons who are
perceived to be part of such groups.
4d6 Categori<ing barriers rather than hu/an beings. +ategori9ing a person can be
the first step towards excluding that person and violating his or her inherent dignity.
The +onvention does not preclude the use of definitions in national legislation<
definitions might be particularly necessary in some sectors, such as employment or
social security. @hat is important is that definitions informing policies and laws reflect
the social model of disability where the challenge facing a person with a disability is
measured in terms of the existing barriers and not on the category or percentage of
the impairment.
The explicit reference to barriers e3ternal to the sub=e*t as *onstituting fa*tors of
disabilit1 represents an important step away from notions that e2uated disability with
functional limitations.
# note on ter/inolog1
,oes interaction $ith persons $ith disabilities re-uire special skills#
5nteraction with persons with disabilities is a matter of persons, not of disabilities. @hen
interaction with persons with disabilities occurs under conditions of e2uality, no special s1ills
are re2uired< persons with disabilities are not special persons< they may feel special 4or most
li1ely discriminated6 when there is no accommodation in place to facilitate their interaction
with others. owever, if the environment has been adBusted appropriately 4e.g., assistive
devices, sign language interpreters, support persons6 and attitudes are in line with a
social"human rights approach, interaction can be smooth. )rrangements should not be
considered special but normal or, using a concept from the +onvention, universal.
5n the street, interaction with persons with disabilities re2uires common sense and respect<
within a professional context, interaction with persons with disabilities re2uires
professionalism. Nothing more and nothing less of what our clients or ac2uaintances without
disabilities would expect. 5nteraction is easier when the rules are the same for everyone and
everyone is welcome.
,epending on the person we need to meet, interview or wor1 with, some arrangements
and"or preparation might be needed. This is something we should be used to as part of our
daily wor1 and for all types of interviews and meetings. )re all physical and linguistic barriers
eliminatedA @hat about the psychological onesA
,o not assume or act as if persons with disabilities are heroic or courageous Bust by virtue of
having a disability. This emphasi9es difference. #ersons with disabilities have strengths and
wea1nesses Bust as persons without disabilities.
20
Terminology
Terminology that is used to refer to or interact with persons with disabilities is nonetheless
important. +ertain words and phrases can be offensive, undermining and"or superficial.
#eople are not definable on the basis of their disability. )ppropriate terminology promotes
respect and reflects deeper understanding of disability. #roper communication is important
with all types of interlocutors. This s1ill is 1ey for participants who develop daily contact with
persons with disabilities, intervene with authorities advocating and reaffirming their rights,
carry out interviews or draft reports.
#ersons with disabilities and their representative organi9ations have chosen certain
terminology, such as Dpersons with disabilitiesE, in which case it is important to use such
terms. Get, when defining acceptable terminology there is always a ris1 of moving towards
political correctness, which in turn can be a barrier to free and fluid speech. Nonetheless, be
aware of the fact that some language can reinforce stereotypes and be offensive to persons
with disabilities. 5f we do not use appropriate language, how can we expect credible
attitudinal changeA
)lways thin1 before you tal1.
)s1 the person you are tal1ing to about anything you are unsure about.
5f a person prefers one term to another, then use that term.
There is no need to be afraid of saying D5 see what you meanE to someone who is
blind. This expression is perfectly understandable and conveys a clear message that
goes beyond vision in the narrow sense< it is not offensive.
21
5%D&6( !
# S'%RT )NTR%D&CT)%N T% T'( C%N>(NT)%N
$a*kground
The United Nations *eneral )ssembly adopted the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons
with ,isabilities and its -ptional #rotocol on $C ,ecember '((.. -n C( March '((J both
were opened for signature at United Nations ead2uarters in New Gor1. )n unprecedented
?$ countries signed the +onvention on the opening day. Fut what led to this momentous
eventA
Fefore the adoption of the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities, other
human rights instruments already addressed disability, either as part of a general focus or
more specifically. Some, such as the Universal ,eclaration of uman !ights, the
5nternational +ovenant on 8conomic, Social and +ultural !ights and the 5nternational
+ovenant on +ivil and #olitical !ights3which together constitute the )nternational $ill of
Rights3promote and protect the rights of everyone, including persons with disabilities,
through the non7discrimination clause. 5n all three instruments, article ' obliges States to
guarantee human rights without distinction of any 1ind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The reference to other status encompasses disability as grounds for protection from
discrimination.
S2e*iali<ed hu/an rights treaties li1e the +onvention against Torture, the +onvention on
the 8limination of ,iscrimination against @omen, the +onvention on the !ights of the +hild
and others, contain provisions protecting against discrimination. The +onvention on the
!ights of the +hild specifically recogni9es the need to protect against discrimination on the
grounds of disability. 5t also specifically recogni9es the right of the child with a disability to
enBoy a full and decent life.
The authoritative state/ents by the committees supervising the application of human
rights treaties 4the United Nations treaty bodies6 are also important. The most relevant to
persons with disabilities are general comments No. '( 4'((%6 of the +ommittee on
8conomic, Social and +ultural !ights, which includes disability among the grounds covered
by Dother statusE, and No. / 4$%%K6, which defines factors causing discrimination against
persons with disabilities< general recommendation No. $? 4$%%$6 of the +ommittee on the
8limination of ,iscrimination against @omen, which addresses the double discrimination
affecting women with disabilities 4as women and as persons with disabilities6< and general
comment No. % 4'((.6 of the +ommittee on the !ights of the +hild on the rights of children
with disabilities.
There have also been regional developments in )frica, the )mericas and 8urope, such as
the 5nter7)merican +onvention on the 8limination of )ll =orms of ,iscrimination against
#ersons with ,isabilities 4$%%%6.
%ther relevant hu/an rights instru/ents are the ,eclaration on the !ights of ,isabled
#ersons 4$%J/6< the @orld #rogramme of )ction concerning ,isabled #ersons 4$%?'6< and
the Standard !ules on the 82uali9ation of -pportunities for #ersons with ,isabilities 4$%%C6.
)lthough not legally binding, these instruments, adopted by the United Nations *eneral
)ssembly, symboli9e the moral and political commitment of States to ta1e measures to
protect persons with disabilities, including through national legislation and policies.
22
So, if an international legal framewor1 already existed, why was it necessary to have a
convention on the rights of persons with disabilitiesA
There were different reasons:
The +onvention was necessary to reaffirm the human rights of persons with
disabilities and to ensure their participation in society as e2ual members and subBects
of rights. #ersons with disabilities continued to be perceived as passive recipients of
assistance rather than rights holders. Foth progress and challenges related to the
development agenda failed to ta1e into account the reality of persons with disabilities.
8conomic growth did not always result in social e2uality< and subsistence
economies, such as in poor countries, sometimes marginali9ed groups with less
power and fewer means. #ersons with disabilities faced numerous patterns of
exclusion. @hile standard7setting led to some improvements, the overall situation
remained very unbalanced. *enerally, persons with disabilities continued to be
invisible in their societies and their marginali9ation often increased the ris1 of human
rights abuse.
The +onvention was necessary to address /ore *o/2rehensivel1 the *hallenges
fa*ing 2ersons with disabilities and to better protect and promote their rights
through a legall1 binding instru/ent. 5n '(($, -+! commissioned a study on
the rights of persons with disabilities and the existing human rights system. The study
concluded that existing instruments and mechanisms were not paying sufficient
attention to the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities< that
the absence of an explicit legal protection of persons with disabilities represented a
gap< that a human rights approach re2uired reinforcing certain concepts to replace or
clarify previous standards. =or example, the right to free and compulsory education
for persons with disabilities means the right to an inclusive education, to be enBoyed
with the other members of the society. 8xisting treaties did not ma1e this clear. 5t was
therefore crucial to review some of the previous approaches and adopt a legally
binding instrument that could provide clarity to human rights concepts and standards
as well as set out clear legal obligations on States. The study also underlined that
2ersons with disabilities and their re2resentative organi<ations were not using
existing human rights standards and mechanisms, such as petitions systems under
human rights treaties, to protect and promote their rights. This reaffirmed the need for
a disability7specific human rights treaty.
The +onvention was the result of a strong advocacy strategy put in place by
organi9ations of persons with disabilities, civil society and States. +ivil society,
particularly organi9ations of persons with disabilities 4,#-s6, international
organi9ations and academics supporting the disability movement were at the
forefront of efforts to advocate and lobby for the +onvention. Their action defined the
overall approach towards the +onvention, ma1ing it clear from the beginning that any
development in the area of disability had to be fully comprehensive, which ensured
the involvement of all relevant participants rather than States only. The participation
of persons with disabilities in important international forums and activities which
preceded the +onvention, such as the first international review of the implementation
of the @orld #rogramme of )ction concerning ,isabled #ersons, was 1ey in
preparing the path for a different approach.
2(
-hat is the Convention.
The +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities is a human rights treaty, i.e., an
international agreement among States setting out human rights and the corresponding
obligations on States.
The +onvention recogni9es the rights of persons with disabilities3these are the
same rights as everyone else3but reaffirms that persons with disabilities must also
enBoy these rights. This in itself is significant as persons with disabilities are often
denied their rights or are simply not aware that they have rights. The treaty
underlines that persons with disabilities should enBoy those rights without
discrimination and on an e2ual basis with others.
The treaty sets out obligations on States to promote and protect the rights of persons
with disabilities. @hile persons with disabilities have the same rights as persons
without disabilities, sometimes States must ta1e different or additional steps to
ensure the reali9ation of those rights. The +onvention sets out these obligations in
considerable detail.
The treaty also sets out the national and international institutions necessary for
implementing and monitoring the +onvention. )t the national level, these could be
*overnment focal points and coordination mechanisms as well as independent
implementation and monitoring mechanisms. )t the international level, the
+onvention establishes the +ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities to
assist States in implementing the +onvention and a +onference of States #arties to
consider any aspect of implementation.
-hat is the 2ur2ose of the Convention.
The purpose of the +onvention is set out in its article $: to promote. protect and ensure the
full and e-ual en/oyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons $ith
disabilities. and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.
Several elements merit further examination:
Promote. protect and ensure rights: this underlines the multiple layers of State
obligations under the +onvention which are to promote 4e.g., raise awareness about
the rights of persons with disabilities6, protect 4e.g., adopt laws and policies that
recogni9e the rights of persons with disabilities and provide remedies for violations6
and ensure rights 4e.g., promote physical and informational accessibility to services6.
0ull and e-ual en/oyment of all human rights: this asserts that persons with
disabilities have the same rights as others and that they should be able to enBoy
those rights on an e2ual basis with everyone in society.
Respect for inherent dignity: this underlies all aspects of human rights as it
emphasi9es the notion that respect for human rights is the bottom line which in many
ways defines our humanity. ) failure to respect rights is a failure to respect an
individual0s dignity and this is the experience of many people with disabilities around
the world.
)rticle $ also explains what is meant by Dpersons with disabilitiesE, which is examined below.
2%
-h1 is the Convention i/2ortant.
The +onvention:
+larifies the rights of persons with disabilities. )s noted already, many persons with
disabilities are unaware of their rights and these rights are often neglected. The
+onvention recogni9es that persons with disabilities have the same rights as
everyone else and that they should enBoy them on an e2ual basis with people without
disabilities.
Sets out responsibilities to respect those rights. 5t recogni9es that asserting rights is
not enough on its own and that it is e2ually important to identify the various steps that
States 4and others6 should ta1e to respect those rights. 5n this sense, the +onvention
is very comprehensive as it sets out in some detail the responsibilities to respect,
protect and fulfil the rights of persons with disabilities.
!ecogni9es disability as a social construct and society should dismantle the barriers
preventing persons with disabilities from participating fully in society.
#romotes inclusive and accessible development. 5t is often described as a human
rights treaty and a development tool. This continues a trend in human rights law that
recogni9es the need for States to ta1e positive steps to guarantee rights and
highlights the role of the international community in helping States to achieve those
rights. 5ndeed, development is essential if the +onvention is to be implemented
properly. =or example, many provisions re2uire improvements in access to goods
and services which rely, in part, on having effective development strategies and
policies. 5mportantly, development should be inclusive of and accessible to persons
with disabilities 4art. C'6. This re2uires a twin7trac1 approach: specific programmes
for persons with disabilities coupled with mainstreaming their rights into development
proBects, programmes and other interventions.
8nsures national and international monitoring of rights. @hile this is not the same as
ensuring legal enforceability, the fact that the +onvention establishes national and
international mechanisms to support implementation and monitoring is a way to
support rights as well as the implementation of the +onvention.
:Disabilit1; and :2ersons with disabilities;
The +onvention does not provide a closed definition of disability. 5ts preamble states that
disabilit1 is an evolving *on*e2t. Nevertheless, the +onvention does reflect a social
model of disability as it clarifies that disability results from the interaction between persons
with impairments and external barriers that hinders their participation in society.
5n this perspective, the framewor1 reflected in the +onvention is built on the understanding
that it is the external environment, and the attitudes that are reflected in its construction, that
plays a central role in creating the condition termed Ddisability.E This contrasts sharply with
the medical model of disability, which is instead built on the concept of the Dbro1en bodyE,
with disability being the obvious result of a physical, mental or sensory deficiency of the
person.
Fecause of this approach, the notion of :disabilit1; *annot be rigid but rather depends on
the prevailing environment and varies from one society to the next. @hile the +onvention
recogni9es disability as an evolving concept, it clearly endorses the understanding of it as a
social construct, when it states that disability Dresults from the interaction between persons
with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and
effective participation in society on an e2ual basis with othersE.
2)
5n line with this understanding, the Convention does not 2rovide a *losed definition of
who persons with disabilities are, but states that they DincludeE those who have long7term
physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various
barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an e2ual basis with
others 4art. $, purpose6.
Some important elements to consider are:
4a6 (volving v. fi3ed *on*e2t. The +onvention recogni9es that DdisabilityE is an
evolving concept resulting from attitudinal and environmental barriers.
+onse2uently, the notion of DdisabilityE is not rigid and can be adapted to the
prevailing environment in a particular society 4the focus will be on the type of
attitudinal and environmental barriers present in those societies and ways to
overcome them6<
4b6 Disabilit1 not as a /edi*al 2roble/ but as an intera*tion between an
i/2air/ent and the surrounding environ/ent. The focus of the
+onvention is not on disability as a medical problem< for the +onvention,
persons become disabled when they clash with an unwelcoming or
inaccessible environment. #ersons with disabilities do not re2uired to be
DfixedE before accessing an environment 4society6< it is instead the
environment that needs to be uniformly open to all its members. 5t does so by
dismantling attitudinal and environmental barriers so that everyone can
actively participate and enBoy the full range of rights.
4c6 The Convention in*ludes all disabilities. The +onvention does not restrict
coverage to particular persons< rather, it identifies persons with long7term
physical, mental, intellectual and sensory disabilities as its beneficiaries. The
reference to DincludeE in article $ could therefore extend the application of the
+onvention to all persons with disabilities, e.g., those with short7term
disabilities or persons who are perceived to be part of such groups.
4d6 Categori<ing barriers rather than hu/an beings. +ategori9ing a person
can be the first step towards excluding that person and violating his or her
inherent dignity. The +onvention does not preclude the use of definitions in
national legislation< definitions might be particularly necessary in some
sectors, such as employment or social security. @hat is important is that
definitions informing policies and laws reflect the social model of disability
where the challenge facing a person with a disability is measured in terms of
the existing barriers and not on the category or percentage of the impairment.
The explicit reference to barriers e3ternal to the sub=e*t as *onstituting fa*tors of
disabilit1 represents an important step away from notions that e2uated disability with
functional limitations.
=or example, the United Nations Standard Rules on the E-uali1ation of 2pportunities for
Persons $ith ,isabilities define disability as the Ddifferent functional limitations occurring in
any population in any country of the world. #eople may be disabled by physical, intellectual
or sensory impairment, medical conditions or mental illnessE. The +onvention upgrades this
approach.
2+
The +onvention does not deny the existence of physical, mental, intellectual or sensory
impairments 4art. $6< what it reBects is an approach which limits or deprives persons with
disabilities from fully participating in society because of such impairments.
The impairment 4limit or restriction6 has instead to be found in the various barriers, which
might include physical barriers, but also attitudes leading to discriminatory legislation and
policies. 5gnorance about disability can be deleterious and that is why wide awareness7
raising is one of the main goals of the +onvention.
The +onvention identifies two categories of persons with disabilities who might be
particularly vulnerable to discrimination and abuse of rights: women with disabilities and
children with disabilities 4arts. . and J6.
"omen $ith disabilities
The +onvention recogni9es that women with disabilities often face multiple forms of
discrimination on the basis not only of disability but also of sex 4art. .6. +onse2uently,
specific attention might be needed to develop programmes ta1ing into account gender
aspects as well as the rights of persons with disabilities, e.g., to boost the percentage of girls
or women with disabilities enrolled in the school system in view of their right to education.
-ne area where women and girls are vulnerable is gender7based violence. The United
Nations #opulation =und 4UN=#)6 estimates that persons with disabilities are up to three
times more susceptible to physical and sexual abuse and rape. @omen and children with
disabilities are more li1ely to be victims of violence than their male counterparts.
K

The +onvention on the 8limination of )ll =orms of ,iscrimination against @omen is the
speciali9ed human rights treaty on women0s rights. 5t can be read together with the
+onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities to understand more fully the
responsibilities of States to prevent discrimination and promote e2uality for women with
disabilities.
+hildren $ith disabilities
,isability itself cuts across all aspects of a child0s life and can have very different
implications at different stages in life. 5t is very important to ensure that the rights of children
with disabilities are ta1en into account in laws, policies, programmes and other interventions
in a way that no child is left out.
)rticle J of the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities re2uires State parties to
ta1e all necessary measures to ensure the full enBoyment by children with disabilities of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms on an e2ual basis with other children. 5t borrows
the term Dthe best interests of the childE from the +onvention on the !ights of the +hild and
re2uires that this be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children with
disabilities.
The +ommittee on the !ights of the +hild0s general comment No. % 4'((.6 on the rights of
children with disabilities provides comprehensive guidance on the rights of children with
disabilities in the context of the +onvention on the !ights of the +hild. )dopted at the time of
%
=or more information, see ,epartment of 8conomic and Social )ffairs, UN=#), @ellesley +enters
for @omen, ,isability Rights. Gender and ,evelopment: A Resource Tool for Action. )vailable from
www.un.org"disabilities"documents"#ublication"UN@+@L'(M)NU)H.pdf 4accessed ? -ctober
'($'6.
2*
negotiations on the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities, its guidance is
relevant to article J.
2thers
-ther persons with disabilities might also be subBect to multiple forms of discrimination, such
as indigenous persons with disabilities or older persons with disabilities.
# rights4based a22roa*h to disabilit1
The main concept behind the +onvention is the move away from a charity or a medical
approach to disability to a social"human rights approach. 5f you understand this concept, you
are in a position to understand the entire +onvention and what it see1s to achieve. =or a full
explanation of the charity, medical, social and human rights approaches, see module $.
The stru*ture and *ontent of the Convention
The +onvention contains /( articles, which can be bro1en down as follows:
/


#reamble
Sets the general context and identifies important bac1ground issues,
such as the relation between disability and development.
)rt. $ Pur2ose
Sets out the goal of the +onvention, which is to promote, protect and
ensure the full and e2ual enBoyment of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote
respect for their inherent dignity.
)rticle $ also explains who is included in the term Dpersons with
disabilitiesE.
)rt. ' Definitions
,efines the +onvention0s 1ey terms, namely communication,
language, discrimination on the basis of disability, reasonable
accommodation and universal design. @hen in doubt, it is useful to
refer to the definitions.
The terms Dpersons with disabilitiesE and DdisabilityE are not defined as
such, because there was a conscious decision to treat them as
evolving concepts.
)rt. C General
2rin*i2les
#rinciples are very important for interpreting and implementing the
rights and other articles in the +onvention. @hen in doubt about the
meaning of an article, you can refer to the principles and use them as
guides, e.g., when building supported decision7ma1ing services,
policyma1ers should be guided by respect for the autonomy of the
person to ensure the individual has maximum autonomy in decision7
ma1ing.
)rt. K General
obligations
)part from recogni9ing the rights of persons with disabilities, the
+onvention also identifies who is responsible for meeting those rights
and what they have to do and when 4e.g., immediately or
progressively6.
)
Ma1e sure that training participants have the +onvention in front of them and actually go through the
text while you spea1 about this slide.
2,
)ll the obligations are important. They are discussed in more detail
below. ere are two examples:
State parties must progressively ta1e measures to reali9e economic,
social and cultural rights to the maximum extent of their available
resources. This is an important recognition that a country0s
development level can affect the rate at which it implements some
articles in the +onvention. 5t serves as a built7in reality chec1. Note that
the -ptional #rotocol to the +onvention rendered economic, social and
cultural rights Busticiable, even before the adoption of the -ptional
#rotocol to the 5nternational +ovenant on 8conomic, Social and
+ultural !ights on $( ,ecember '((?.
a6
There is also an obligation to consult persons with disabilities closely
and actively involve them in the development and implementation of
legislation and policies to implement the +onvention and in other
decision7ma1ing processes that concern them. This reflects the
general principle of participation and inclusion in article C and ma1es it
stronger by placing an obligation on the State to respect it. Muestions
for discussion are: ow can it be measuredA @hen did effective
consultation occurA
)rts. />
C(
Cross4*utting
issues
The +onvention comprises a robust non7discrimination and e2uality
framewor1, which applies across all its rights, civil, cultural, economic,
political and social. )rticle / re2uires State parties to ensure the
e2uality of individuals with disabilities, as well as prohibit any
discrimination because of disability. This general prohibition is further
detailed in the context of specific rights, which explain both what
amounts to discrimination on the basis of disability in their respective
contexts as well as measures, including positive measures, to achieve
de facto e2uality. The +onvention further stipulates that such
measures may not be deemed discriminatory.
=ollowing article / are thematic articles of general application to be
integrated across the +onvention. These include article . on women
with disabilities and article J on children with disabilities. Muestions
arise such as: @hy have children and women been referred to
expresslyA )re there other cross7cutting issues that could be relevantA
)re there other individuals or groups that are relevant, e.g., older
persons, indigenous peoplesA
S2e*ifi* rights
The +onvention covers the full spectrum of human rights. 5n a clear
expression of the interdependence and e2ual status of all human
rights, it mixes civil and political with economic, social and cultural
rights. 5ts substantive articles clarify the content and scope of the
human rights to which all persons are entitled, as applicable to persons
with disabilities.
The +onvention is novel in that it sets out a range of measures that
place obligations on States to do something which is necessary to
guarantee rights< however, these measures are not directly related to
any one right in particular. They include:
)wareness7raising
)ccessibility
Situations of ris1 and humanitarian emergencies
29
)ccess to Bustice
#ersonal mobility
abilitation and rehabilitation
,ata and statistics
5nternational cooperation
)rt. C' )nternational
*oo2eration
Underlining the importance of international cooperation, including
development cooperation, to meet the rights set out in it, the
+onvention has a stand7alone article on this subBect. This builds on the
practice previous human rights treaties which referred to international
cooperation, normally in articles related to the progressive reali9ation
of economic, social and cultural rights. )rticle C' also spells out in
greater detail the sorts of actions through which international
cooperation can help promote the +onvention 4e.g., cooperation in
research, ensuring that development cooperation is inclusive of and
accessible to persons with disabilities6.
Note that the article on international cooperation and the other articles
are interrelated and interdependent. 5n other words, international
cooperation, including development cooperation, is a way to reali9e
rights and improve the +onvention0s implementation< development and
human rights are not separate parts of the +onvention but interrelated.
)rts. C$
and CC
)/2le/entation
and /onitoring
/easures
These articles set forth implementation and monitoring measures.
)rticle C$ re2uires State parties to collect appropriate information,
including statistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and
implement policies to give effect to the +onvention. )rticle CC sets forth
the various measures that State parties have to adopt to establish
national implementation and monitoring framewor1s.
)rts. CK>
C%
Co//ittee
Starting from article CK, the +onvention details its institutional
structure. 5t establishes the +ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with
,isabilities with authority to receive and review periodic reports from
State parties.
)rt. K( Conferen*e of
States Parties
The +onvention establishes a +onference of States #arties to meet
regularly to consider any matter with regard to the +onvention0s
implementation.
=rom art.
K$
onwards
?inal *lauses
The +onvention sets out the procedures for signature, ratification,
entry into force and other relevant re2uirements.

Under the %2tional Proto*ol to the Convention, individuals and groups of individuals may
submit allegations of breaches of any of the provisions of the +onvention to the +ommittee.
The -ptional #rotocol also permits the +ommittee, with the countries0 consent, to underta1e
in2uiries in countries where there has been reliable evidence of grave or systematic
violations of the rights of persons with disabilities.
(0
Prin*i2les
#rti*le 0 of the Convention identifies a set of general principles to assist States in
understanding and implementing its provisions effectively. =or a fuller overview, see the
table in module $.
'u/an rights in the Convention
)rticle $( > !ight to life
)rticle $' > 82ual recognition before the law
)rticle $K > Hiberty and security of the person
)rticle $/ > =reedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
)rticle $. > =reedom from exploitation, violence and abuse
)rticle $J > 5ntegrity of the person
)rticle $? > Hiberty of movement and nationality
)rticle $% > To live independently and be included in the community
)rticle '$ > =reedom of expression and opinion, and access to information
)rticle '' > !espect for privacy
)rticle 'C > ome and family
)rticle 'K > 8ducation
)rticle '/ > ealth
)rticle 'J > @or1 and employment
)rticle '? > )de2uate standard of living and social protection
)rticle '% > #articipation in political and public life
)rticle C( > #articipation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport
@hile the +onvention does not create new rights, it does define with greater clarity the
application of existing rights to the specific situation of persons with disabilities.
=or example, some appropriate measures to ensure freedo/ of e32ression and o2inion
and a**ess to infor/ation are:
#roviding information in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different
1inds of disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost< and
)ccepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Fraille, augmentative and
alternative communication, and all other accessible means of communication in
official interaction.
)n ade7uate standard of living and so*ial 2rote*tion re2uire, among other things:
)ccess to appropriate and affordable services, devices and other assistance for
disability7related needs< and
)ccess by persons with disabilities and their families living in poverty to assistance
from the State with disability7related expenses.
The +onvention also includes a series of obligations on States in relation to a range of
issues which are necessary for the full enBoyment of human rights. These are:
5easure (32lanation
)wareness7raising
4art. ?6
)wareness7raising involves both increasing understanding of
disability rights as well as combating stereotypes through public
campaigns, education, encouraging responsible media reporting and
training
(1
)ccessibility 4art. %6 To enable independent living, accessibility is important in relation to
the physical environment, transport, information and communications,
and other facilities and services open or provided to the public
Situations of ris1
and humanitarian
emergencies 4art.
$$6
5n recognition of the particular vulnerabilities of persons with
disabilities during situations of ris1 and humanitarian emergencies,
States underta1e to ensure their protection and safety
)ccess to Bustice
4art. $C6
) fundamental part of ensuring the enBoyment of rights is access to
Bustice to enBoy the right to a remedy. This re2uires accommodations
in the legal system as well as training for legal professionals.
#ersonal mobility
4art. '(6
#ersonal mobility promotes independence and States can foster this
by facilitating access to mobility aids and assistive technologies,
providing training to specialist staff, encouraging producers of mobility
devices to ta1e into account the needs of persons with disabilities and
so on.
abilitation and
rehabilitation 4art.
'.6
)gain, to attain maximum independence, States underta1e to
strengthen and extend comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation
services, which go beyond health services and include employment,
education and social services.
Statistics and data
collection 4art. C$6
5n order to help formulate and implement policies for the
implementation of the +onvention, States should collect
disaggregated information in a way that respects human rights and
ethical standards of data collection and analysis.
5nternational
cooperation 4art. C'6
The +onvention recogni9es that most States will benefit from
international cooperation to meet their commitments. =or instance by
ensuring that development cooperation is inclusive and accessible,
through information exchange and training, through research and
technology transfer, and technical and economic assistance.
These measures focus on actions that States must ta1e to ensure an environment
conducive to the fulfilment of specific rights of persons with disabilities.
%bligations
-bligations appear at two levels: article K sets out general obligations and each subse2uent
article sets out obligations in relation to specific rights.
) first 2uestion to as1 is who is responsible for meeting these commitmentsA )s with all
human rights treaties, the +onvention places obligations on States. owever, several
articles also highlight the role of private enterprises in reali9ing the rights of persons with
disabilities. @hile it is up to States to ensure that private enterprises respect the +onvention
4i.e., obligations are not placed directly on private enterprises6, it is important to ac1nowledge
the role of private enterprises and underline the need to engage this part of society in
partnerships to promote disability rights. -ther human rights treaties mention the private
sector as well and the responsibility of business enterprises in relation to human rights is an
area that has attracted considerable attention in recent years. owever, the +onvention
certainly goes further than other treaties in identifying specific areas for action by the private
sector. The private sector or private entities"enterprises are mentioned in the articles on:
general obligations 4art. K 4$6 4e66< accessibility 4art. % 4'6 4b66< personal mobility 4art. '( 4d66<
freedom of expression 4art. '$ 4c66< health 4art. '/ 4d66< and wor1 4art. 'J 4$6 4h66.
(2
5n addition to private enterprises, it is possible to identify other actors, beyond States, with
responsibilities to respect the rights of persons with disabilities. =or example, article '/
refers to health professionals. Several articles refer to support services and community
services 4for example, art. $' in relation to support for exercising legal capacity and art. $%
on independent living6. )rticle 'K refers to the employment of 2ualified teachers to promote
inclusive education. So even though the legal responsibility to respect the +onvention lies
with the State, many other actors have a role to play.
-hat then are the obligations on StatesA ere is a summary of these obligations, which are
discussed in greater detail in later modules:
Revie$ e3isting la$s and policies3to ensure that they respect the +onvention and do
not set out inconsistent rules and standards3and adopt new ones to ensure that the
legal and policy framewor1 supports the +onvention0s implementation. Such laws could
be anti7discrimination laws and comprehensive disability laws 4if they exist3it is not a
re2uirement6 but also guardianship laws, education laws, mental health laws and so on.
Secondary legislation and regulations are also covered. #olicies could be national
development strategies, national disability strategies or social inclusion strategies, as
well as departmental and ministerial strategies to improve disability rights.
Provide funding3it is not enough simply to pass legislation. @hile some prohibitions on
discrimination might not have financial implications, others will re2uire funding 4e.g.,
ma1ing public spaces accessible for persons with disabilities6. Haws and policies which
are not funded are unli1ely to be fully implemented.
(ake goods and services accessible3much of the +onvention relies on access to
goods and services, such as assistive technologies and health care and education. Such
services must be accessible to persons with disabilities if these persons are to enBoy
their rights on an e2ual basis with others. This may re2uire disability7specific services,
while at other times it may re2uire mainstream services 4e.g., education6 to be accessible
to persons with disabilities.
A$areness4raising3many of the barriers facing persons with disabilities are negative
attitudes. !aising awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities, as well as the
capabilities of persons with disabilities, is important to reduce such negative attitudes.
Training3training on the +onvention for professionals, such as teachers and health
professionals, is important to reali9e many of the rights of persons with disabilities, in
particular those related to access to services. =or example, teachers need to have the
1nowledge necessary to support inclusive education and health professionals need to
understand the shift to a social"human rights approach so that persons with disabilities
can access health services on an e2ual basis with others.
,ata collection3good data are necessary to develop good laws and policies to
implement the +onvention. +onse2uently, States should underta1e research and collect
data so that the situation of persons with disabilities and the barriers they face to enBoy
their rights are better understood.
((
5uild capacity3in 1eeping with a human rights approach to development, building the
capacity of States to meet their obligations under the +onvention and that of persons
with disabilities so that they can claim their rights is essential for the full implementation
of the +onvention.
There are several ways to present State obligations in relation to human rights treaties. The
international human rights system is based on the identification of two broad obligations:
*egative obligations3the obligation to refrain from doing something or freedom from the
State
Positive obligations3the obligation on the State to ta1e steps to promote rights or
freedom through the State
5t is increasingly popular to rely on the formula Drespect, protect and fulfilE to present
obligations on States. This is the formulation proposed to explain obligations here:
The obligation to respect3States must refrain from interfering with the enBoyment of
rights<
The obligation to protect3States must prevent violations of rights by third parties such
as private enterprises, medical professionals and so on<
The obligation to fulfil3States must ta1e appropriate legislative, administrative,
budgetary, Budicial and other action to reali9e rights.
5t is possible to go bac1 to the general obligations and fit each one into one of these three
categories. =or example:
!espect3refrain from any act that is inconsistent with the +onvention<
#rotect3ta1e steps to eliminate discrimination in the private sector<
=ulfil3introduce legislation that is compatible with the +onvention< ta1e steps to achieve
the progressive reali9ation of economic, social and cultural rights.
National and international /onitoring /e*hanis/s
The +onvention explicitly provides for national and international monitoring mechanisms.
$. )t the national level, the +onvention proposes three mechanisms:
The establishment of a focal point or focal points within the *overnment to ensure
coordination among different branches of the *overnment and different ministries and
levels, i.e., local, provincial and federal, to progress on the implementation of the
+onvention<
The establishment or designation of a coordination mechanism within the *overnment to
facilitate action in different sectors and at different levels<
The establishment of a framewor1, such as a national human rights institution or
ombudsperson0s office, to promote, protect and monitor the +onvention. This framewor1
(%
should conform to the #aris #rinciples, which set out the standards for independence as
well as the functions for such monitoring institutions as agreed by the *eneral )ssembly.
=ocal points and coordination mechanisms potentially have strong and transformative roles
in the promotion of the +onvention. Traditionally, disability issues have been within the remit
of one ministry, such as the health or social affairs ministry. )t times, this has meant that
some issues have been placed outside the ministry dealing with the general issue. This has
created parallel approaches and segregation. =or example, the social affairs ministry might
deal with the education of children with disabilities and not the ministry of education, thus
placing children with disabilities outside the general education system. The cross7cutting
nature of disability rights means that they involve many other issues, including Bustice,
education, labour, foreign affairs, housing, finance, sports and culture. The focal points and
coordination mechanisms provide a means to ensure that:
There is one governmental body, or several, with responsibilities for disability rights
4focal points6<
Narious ministries and departments 4and others6 are coordinating their wor1
4coordination mechanism6.
The +onvention provides significant flexibility as to the form of these mechanisms and
States can adapt them to national circumstances. =or instance, a coordination mechanism
might also have civil society participation, as is already the case of many disability councils.
The national framewor1 for implementation and monitoring that is compliant with the #aris
#rinciples is very important as it provides an independent means of assisting and also
verifying the implementation of the +onvention. 5ndependent national human rights
institutions can play many roles:
Monitoring the *overnment0s implementation of its commitments under the +onvention<
Ma1ing recommendations to the *overnment on steps to improve implementation<
!eviewing and promoting the harmoni9ation of national laws related to disability<
Submitting opinions on legislative bills and proposals related to disability to ensure they
are consistent with the +onvention<
8ncouraging the ratification of disability7related instruments, for example, encouraging
the *overnment to ratify the -ptional #rotocol to the +onvention if it has not yet done so<
!aising awareness about disability rights and about combating disability discrimination<
!eceiving complaints from individuals and groups alleging breaches of the +onvention<
=ormulating human rights education programmes<
+ontributing to reports to the +ommittee of the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities<
+ooperating regionally and internationally with other N!5s.
There are other ways of monitoring and enforcing the +onvention, beyond those outlined in
it, such as courts, consumer tribunals and so on. +ourts provide legal protection of the rights
of persons with disabilities. 5n other words, they provide legally enforceable remedies when
abuse has been proven. They can be particularly relevant when an individual, a group of
individuals or a civil society organi9ation decides to bring a test case. The court0s decision
()
can then have wide7ranging repercussions such as changes in the law or in attitudes.
owever, courts can be slow and costly, and potential litigants might have to decide whether
their case is worth the time and cost.
'. )t the international level, the +onvention envisages two mechanisms:
The establishment of an independent treaty7monitoring body 4the +ommittee on the
!ights of #ersons with ,isabilities6 composed of $? members, whose primary function is
to review implementation reports from State parties together with shadow reports from
civil society, and to enter into a constructive dialogue with State parties to strengthen
implementation of the +onvention. The +ommittee can also receive complaints under the
-ptional #rotocol and launch investigations into possible grave and systematic violations
of the +onvention.
The +onference of States #arties meets at least biennially to consider any matter related
to the implementation of the +onvention.
-ther training modules will focus on these mechanisms. owever, it could be useful to
discuss the reporting process and how the process as well as the +ommittee0s review of
reports can help implementation. Such a discussion might have to be tailored to the
audience at hand. =or example, if participants are principally *overnment representatives,
the discussion could focus on ways that reporting can help them with implementation.
#reparing the report can help State representatives to:
!eview national legislation and policies to ascertain their compatibility with the
+onvention as well as their impact on persons with disabilities<
5dentify gaps in the legal and policy framewor1<
8nsure that focal points and coordination mechanisms have been appointed within
*overnment and are functioning ade2uately<
5dentify funding gaps in ministries and programmes that might be delaying
implementation<
Fuild partnerships with other actors such as ,#-s through the drafting process.
-ther O
5f the participants are principally from civil society, the discussion could focus on how civil
society can influence the State report as well as how it can prepare an alternative report for
the +ommittee which can provide a broader view of the situation of persons with disabilities
and the enBoyment of their rights than is available in the State report.
5f participants are from the United Nations, the participants can discuss how the United
Nations country teams might prepare information for the +ommittee. United Nations
participants might not be aware that information can be sent on a confidential basis to the
+ommittee. ,iscussion could focus on how the +ommittee0s recommendations can
strengthen United Nations programming and also feed into future United Nations
programming, including future country analyses and country programmes.
Parti*i2ation and in*lusion of 2ersons with disabilities and re2resentative
organi<ations
8ffective participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities is only one of the general
principles. owever, it is particularly significant given the traditional invisibility of many
(+
persons with disabilities in decision7ma1ing that affects them. Therefore, it can be valuable
to elaborate on this principle, time permitting.
The concepts of full and effective participation and inclusion promote a reality where all
people are able to ta1e part fully in the public and private dimensions of their society and in
decisions that affect their lives.
#articipation. To be effective, participation must go beyond Bust consultation before moving
along a predetermined path or with a predetermined decision. To be effective, participation
should be as active as possible so that persons with disabilities are involved in decision7
ma1ing processes and activities. 8ffective participation also involves an element of
accountability. ,ecision ma1ers should ta1e account of the proposals and ideas put forward
by persons with disabilities, either by modifying their action, activity or decision or, if that is
not possible, explaining why they cannot do so.
5nclusion is not simply about physically placing persons with disabilities in the same space
as persons without disabilities 4for example, in the classroom6. 5t is about mainstream society
changing and adapting so that persons with disabilities can participate on an e2ual basis
with others. =or example, in the classroom, it could involve changing the syllabus to
accommodate persons who are deaf or changing activities so that they strengthen the
abilities and capacities of each pupil, with or without a disability.
Through participation and inclusion:
The needs and concerns of persons with disabilities become clearer and solutions can
be more effective<
#ersons with disabilities have the opportunity to raise issues and hold decision ma1ers
accountable<
#ersons with disabilities become more visible and have the opportunity to learn and
change from the experience of others and vice versa.
#articipation and inclusion are not one7off experiences< they are lifetime experiences.
=urthermore, 2ersons with disabilities should also have the o22ortunit1 to /ake
de*isions not ne*essaril1 related to disabilit1 or related to 2ersons without
disabilities. Sometimes, accessibility arrangements are made in relation to activities relating
specifically to persons with disabilities 4for example, a meeting on disability rights6. owever,
persons with disabilities have many interests Bust as anyone else in society. =or example, a
person with a disability might wish to participate in meetings unrelated to disability and
accessibility should extend to these activities as well. 5n this sense, the principle of
participation and inclusion should be applied broadly.
Since the beginning, the participation of a vibrant civil society, including persons with
disabilities, and representatives of speciali9ed organi9ations of persons with disabilities
4,#-s6, general N*-s and N!5s, inspired the drafting process of the +onvention.
5n 1eeping with practice in human rights7related discussions, N*-s, including ,#-s, were
accredited to the )d oc +ommittee that drafted the +onvention and participated in the
(*
related sessions and meetings. The *eneral )ssembly constantly supported the active
involvement of disability organi9ations in the )d oc +ommittee0s wor1.
) broad coalition of ,#-s and allied N*-s formed the 5nternational ,isability +aucus 45,+6,
the unified voice of organi9ations of people with disabilities from all regions of the world. -ne
of its members stated that its goal was Dto open doors for positive change that will end
discrimination and ensure our freedom and rightsE.
The level of participation of ,#-s and N*-s in the drafting process was probably
unprecedented in United Nations human rights treaty negotiations. Fy the )d oc
+ommittee0s final session, some ?(( ,#- members were registered. Feyond the
negotiations, ,#-s have been actively involved in the DlifeE of the +onvention. They were
closely involved in the signing ceremony on C( March '((J and have been involved in the
wor1 of the +onference of States #arties and the uman !ights +ouncil0s annual debates on
the +onvention.
@hat role then did ,#-s playA The 5nternational ,isability +aucus was a 1ey presence
throughout and brought the concerns of international, regional and national civil society to
the negotiating table. ,#-s had a crucial role in the drafting of the wor1ing group text, the
basis for negotiations on the final +onvention, which was the result of the wor1 of 'J
*overnments, $' N*-s",#-s and $ N!5.
The final text of the +onvention was the product of truly inclusive negotiations. Many
positions ta1en and suggestions provided by civil society, especially ,#-s and mainly
through 5,+, were integrated in the text. Substantive proposals made by 5,+, e.g., on the
need to ensure that persons with disabilities are consulted in policyma1ing and decision7
ma1ing, are integral parts of the +onvention.
The role of 5,+ and N!5s in the negotiations was also 1ey to ensuring the inclusion of a
provision on national implementation and monitoring re2uiring States to establish some form
of independent national mechanism to protect, promote and monitor the +onvention.
*othing about us $ithout us6
The motto DNothing )bout Us @ithout UsE relies on the principle of participation and is used
by ,#-s as part of the global movement to achieve full participation and e2uali9ation of
opportunities for b1 and with persons with disabilities. The main message is that persons
with disabilities must always be directly involved when strategies and policies are being
planned that will directly affect their lives. #ersons with disabilities are men, women or
children with disabilities.
)s an N!5 representative stated before the adoption of the +onvention, Des2e*iall1 the
active involvement of civil society has helped to give this +onvention a sustained focus and
relevance as well as bring its drafting to a speedy conclusion 4O6 This openness and
inclusiveness has ensured that the fairly lengthy text of the +onvention nevertheless
possesses a powerful electric current.E
The 1ey role of civil society did not stop with the adoption of the +onvention< it continues with
its implementation. #ersons with disabilities are 1ey in ensuring promotional activities and
information about the +onvention. The new approach of the +onvention is very much about
understanding and sharing the perspectives of persons with disabilities. These persons are
also crucial in the process of reviewing and proposing national measures.
-hat *an different a*tors do to 2ro/ote the Convention.
(,
State actors
!atify the +onvention
@hen the +onvention has been ratified, publici9e this fact
Translate the +onvention into local languages
8nsure that a national focal point within the *overnment is appointed
+onsider establishing a coordination mechanism
,esignate an independent monitoring and implementation mechanism
!eview and reform laws and policies and start implementing the +onvention
-therA
2rgani1ations of persons $ith disabilities 7,P2s8
#ersons with disabilities and their representative organi9ations can play many roles in
promoting the +onvention, for instance:
Using the +onvention as a benchmar1 to assess national laws, policies and activities
of the *overnment and other actors to ensure compliance with the +onvention and
its progressive implementation
Using the +onvention as a benchmar1 to record and report on the current enBoyment
of rights by persons with disabilities
Using the +onvention as a tool for advocacy. =or example, using the signing,
ratification and reporting to the +ommittee as media moments to attract attention to
the situation of persons with disabilities nationally
Using the +onvention as an obBective and internationally recogni9ed standard to alert
States to their responsibilities towards persons with disabilities, underlining the fact
that disability rights are not the responsibility of others 4private sector, international
community, N*-s and so on6 but first and foremost the responsibility of States
Using the +onvention as a tool to ensure the establishment of ade2uate national
promotion and monitoring mechanisms as re2uired under article CC, so that there is a
better chance that implementation will be successful and sustainable
@or1ing with the *overnment to encourage it to report to the +ommittee on time and
also participating in drafting the report
#roviding alternative reports to the +ommittee so that the it has the fullest possible
view of the situation of persons with disabilities in the country, as well as the areas
where clear recommendations are most needed and are li1ely to be most effective
-ther O
+ivil society organi1ations 7other than ,P2s8
+ivil society organi9ations such as human rights or development N*-s have important roles
to play in promoting and monitoring the +onvention. They can:
(9
+onsider mainstreaming disability rights within their own programmes
8xamine whether they should establish a stand7alone programme on disability rights
Fuild the capacity of ,#-s
5nclude information on the rights of persons with disabilities in their alternative
reports to United Nations treaty bodies
-ther O
*ational human rights institutions
National human rights institutions can:
+larify which institution4s6 will be designated as the national implementation and
monitoring framewor1
#ublici9e the +onvention
Underta1e research related to disability rights
5nclude the +onvention in its annual activities and reports
5nclude information on the rights of persons with disabilities in their alternative reports
to United Nations treaty bodies
-ther O
)nited *ations country teams
United Nations country teams can also play a role in promoting the +onvention and can:
Mainstream the +onvention in country programmes
8stablish a stand7alone programme to support the State in the ratification and
implementation of the +onvention
Fuild the capacity of ,#-s
#rovide information to the +ommittee at the time of reporting
+onsider establishing a programme and applying for funding through the Multi7donor
Trust =und for the +onvention.
The Multi7donor Trust =und was established in '($$ to support United Nations7led
programmes, principally at the country level, but also at the regional and global levels,
relating to the +onvention0s ratification and implementation. The founding agencies were the
5nternational Habour -rgani9ation 45H-6, -+!, the United Nations ,epartment for
8conomic and Social )ffairs 4UN,8S)6, the United Nations ,evelopment #rogramme
4UN,#6, the United Nations +hildren0s =und 4UN5+8=6 and the @orld ealth -rgani9ation
4@-6.
.

+
=or more information, see http:""mdtf.undp.org"factsheet"fund"!#,(( 4accessed ? -ctober '($'6.
%0
5%D&6( 0
R#T)?)C#T)%N
)ntrodu*tion
The +onvention has been widely ratified in only a few years. Fy $ -ctober '($', the
+onvention had $'K parties and its -ptional #rotocol JK. This means that over half the world
has indicated its consent to be bound by the +onvention. Get, there is still wor1 to be done
to achieve universal acceptance. Module C introduces the main concepts and processes
underlying ratification, which should help train and motivate representatives of States, civil
society and national human rights institutions in countries that have not yet ratified the
+onvention.
5n delivering a training session on ratification, it is important to highlight that ratification of an
international treaty is a complicated process which changes from country to country. =irst of
all, the term ratification is used in different ways and can cause some confusion. =or
example, ratification can refer to the adoption of a treaty at the national level 4such as
adoption by the national parliament6, but it can also refer to the international act of adhering
to a treaty. =urthermore, some countries accede to a treaty rather than ratify it, so the term
ratification might be less relevant than accession. )t the same time, the treaty is subBect to
formal confirmation by regional integration organi9ations such as the 8uropean Union. @hile
the term ratification tends to be used as a catch7all phrase, strictly spea1ing it might be more
relevant to some Burisdictions than others.
Second, the process underlying ratification tends to differ from county to country. Some
countries have comprehensive national discussions prior to international ratification, while
others ratify the treaty first and underta1e national discussions later. Some countries simply
ratify the +onvention internationally and do not ta1e any further step at the national level.
+onse2uently, in presenting module C, the facilitator should be aware of the relevant
national processes and adapt the module accordingly.
National /easures for ratifi*ation
+onstitutional law and practice regulate the various aspects of the ratification process that
generally, although not always, ta1es place at national level prior to ratification or accession
at the international level. 5t is relevant to note that the +onvention does not indicate any
specific national process that States should underta1e with regard to ratification.

-verall, there are two approaches to national ratification, which are defined by the role of the
legislative branch. =irst, in civil law countries, ratification ta1es place through the approval of
the treaty by the legislative branch. )fter the vote of approval, the act of ratification is sent to
the executive for its promulgation, publication and deposit with its depositary. =or example,
)rgentina, +hile, +roatia, 8cuador, ungary, Mali, Niger, #anama and Spain ratified the
+onvention through an act of parliament. Mexico ratified it through approval by one of its
legislative chambers.
Second, in most countries with a common law tradition, as well as in other legal systems,
ratification of the +onvention can ta1e place through an act of the executive. 5f parliament is
involved, it is in a consultative capacity. 5n other words, a formal vote by parliament is not
necessary. =or example ratification through executive decisions too1 place in Fangladesh,
New Pealand and Thailand.
%1
!egardless of the differences between the two approaches, and of the specificities of
national systems, these domestic processes offer important opportunities for raising
awareness and promoting understanding of the treaty under consideration. 5ndeed, the
processes leading to and following ratification can influence the next step, i.e.,
implementation, for instance by identifying legal and other gaps and galvani9ing support.
Some States assess the benefits and challenges of ratification with national analyses. Such
reports follow a review of the national legislation and policies for compliance with the
+onvention, and highlight issues such as the reasons and implications, in terms of
obligations and costs, of becoming a party to a treaty and implementing it. National analyses
accompany the proposal for ratification internally. )ny pre7ratification review should be part
of the process that continues in the implementation phase to review existing and proposed
legislation. 5deally, the findings of the national interest analysis carried out by the
*overnment should eventually be made public.
Similarly, States should engage in ade2uate consultation prior to ratification. 5ndeed, some
support for this can be found in the +onvention itself. 5ts article K 4C6 states:
'n the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the
present +onvention. and in other decision4making processes concerning issues
relating to persons $ith disabilities. States Parties shall closely consult $ith and
actively involve persons $ith disabilities. including children $ith disabilities. through
their representative organi1ations9
@hile the State is not yet bound by article K 4C6, as it has not ratified the +onvention,
underta1ing public consultations on ratification is a good practice that could influence
implementation at a later stage. Through consultation, the act of ratification may become
more than a political act directed towards the international community and actually improve
standards on the ground.
5f consultations ta1e place, they should ta1e into account the full range of actors that have a
role to play in ratification. *overnment representatives should be consulted. owever, many
parts of the *overnment have a role to play in ensuring disability rights and consultations
can include different levels, such as central, provincial and municipal government. Similarly,
consultations can occur across *overnment, not only ministries of social affairs and health,
which often have the disabilities portfolio, but also other ministries, such as education,
Bustice, the interior or finance, that will be involved in implementing the +onvention.
#ersons with disabilities should have a voice in the discussions about ratification, both
directly and through their representative organi9ations 4,#-s6. Such consultations should
reflect the diversity of disabilities. #ersons with disabilities are not a monolithic group, but
comprise persons with different impairments 4psychosocial, intellectual, physical, sensory6
and also different people 4men and women, children with disabilities, indigenous peoples,
older persons and so on6. +onsultations should attempt to reflect this diversity as much as
possible.
The need to support the participation of organi9ations of persons with disabilities in
consultations, including financially, should be carefully considered. States engaged in
ratification processes sometimes find it difficult to ensure wider consultation owing to a lac1
of funds, for example, for developing countries or those facing crises. 5n such cases,
consultation processes have to ma1e the most of scarce resources. owever, consultation
should nonetheless ta1e place, not only to ensure the participation and inclusion of persons
with disabilities, but also because these persons might have proposals relating to the most
effective use of scarce resources to ensure the progressive reali9ation of the +onvention.
%2
-ther civil society actors, such as human rights or development N*-s, should also be
consulted. 5f there is a national human rights institution, it should be consulted and could
also have a role in underta1ing research on the rights of persons with disabilities and in
analysing laws and policies.
The ratification process should be inclusive and representative of society as a whole,
including minority groups and political opposition, and not be guided by a political agenda.
Such a genuine and inclusive process is in line with the principle of international law
according to which a country0s subse2uent *overnments are e2ually bound by an
international treaty previously ratified. The ris1 is that a *overnment in power might exclude
certain actors, such as the political opposition, so as to ensure freer action in decision7
ma1ing. Get, in the longer term, this might thwart implementation and ma1e it unsustainable
when there is a change in *overnment.
The )ustralian ratification process offers a good example of the steps involved. )ustralia
signed the +onvention in March '((J and ratified it in ;uly '((?. The national exercise
involved a comprehensive review of all +ommonwealth, State and Territory legislation to
ensure that )ustralia could comply with all the articles of the +onvention. The ,epartments
of =amilies, ousing, +ommunity Services and 5ndigenous )ffairs, and of the )ttorney7
*eneral, in consultation with national ,#-s, disability advisory councils and the disability
legal services networ1, presented a report on the impact of ratification to the *overnment.
The report identified both the benefits and the disadvantages of ratifying the +onvention and
its -ptional #rotocol< verified whether )ustralian laws complied with +onvention obligations<
described the economic, environmental, social and cultural impact of ratification< established
an appropriate means of directly incorporating the +onvention< and audited national laws,
policies and programmes.
#reparing for ratification is not only a *overnment7led process. +ivil society can also
advocate ratification. 5ndeed, this can be one of the most effective triggers for the
*overnment to ta1e action. To this end civil society and others can:
Qnow the facts
Hearn how the +onvention becomes part of national law
Hearn about the effects and costs of ratification
5dentify ways in which ratification can help persons with disabilities
8ducate others
5ncluding decision ma1ers through meetings, e7mails, letters, telephone calls
and visits, stressing disability as a human rights issue
5ncluding the community through encouraging national debates and tal1s in
schools and the community
Mobili9e partners and allies, such as other disability groups and human rights
organi9ations and social movements
ighlight the importance of the issue
+reate a Boint ratification campaign
Suggest concrete actions for them to become involved
Fuild a networ1, including ways to exchange information and communicate
4such as creating a website6
Hobby
@rite to the *overnment, urging it to sign and ratify
%(
,iscuss the +onvention with Members of #arliament
Meet your contacts in ministries, local and national agencies, etc.
=ollow7up
Send than1 you letters to officials and other partners
)ssess the success of strategies and messages
The United Nations Mine )ction Service and -+! prepared an Advocacy :it to help
mine action centres advocate ratification of the +onvention. The box below reproduces a
sample letter that could be sent to relevant sta1eholders to promote ratification.
R;2)R A,,RESSS
RRE+'P'E*T<S A,,RESSS
R,ATES
,ear R*A(E 20 G2=ER*(E*T 200'+'AS,
The +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities entered into force on C May '((?.
@hen it was opened for signature on C( March '((J, there were ?' signatories to the
+onvention, the highest number of signatories in history to a United Nations convention on
its opening. =or the full text, please see www.un.org"disabilities. This +onvention:
T 8stablishes international standards regarding the rights and freedoms of persons with
disabilities<
T +larifies human rights principles of inclusion, non7discrimination, accessibility and
participation in the context of persons with disabilities<
T #rovides an authoritative model for *overnments to use in shaping national law and
policies<
T +reates more effective mechanisms for monitoring the rights of persons with
disabilities< and
T #rescribes national implementation and monitoring mechanisms.
The +onvention mar1s a paradigm shift in attitudes and approaches to persons with
disabilities. 5t represents the movement from viewing persons with disabilities as DobBectsE of
charity, medical treatment and social protection towards viewing persons with disabilities as
DsubBectsE with rights, who are capable of ma1ing decisions and being active members of
society.
This is the first maBor human rights treaty of this century and it is a historic achievement for
the ./( million persons with disabilities around the world. 5t certainly offers R*A(E 20
+2)*TR;S an important opportunity to fulfil its obligations towards citi9ens. @e loo1 forward
to wor1ing with you on these matters and are available to provide support should you so
re2uire.
Gours sincerely,
R*A(E 20 PERS2* ! 2RGA*'>AT'2*S
)nternational /easures for ratifi*ation
)t the international level, States or regional integration organi9ations 4such as the 8uropean
Union6 that intend to become parties to the +onvention must express their consent to be
%%
bound by it. )rticle KC establishes that such consent can be expressed through ratification,
accession or formal confirmation. ) regional integration organi9ation is an organi9ation
constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its member States have
transferred competence in respect of matters governed by the +onvention 4art. KK6.
)t this stage, it is important to define certain terms. =or many States, expressing this
consent comprises signature and ratification:
4a6 Signature of the +onvention is an act by which a State or regional integration
organi9ation expresses its interest in the treaty and its intention to become a #arty.
States and organi9ations are not bound by their signature. owever, they must
refrain from acts that would defeat the obBect and purpose of the +onvention,
according to the Nienna +onvention on the Haw of Treaties 4art. $?6<
4b6 Ratifi*ation consists of the deposit, through a formal letter, of the instrument of
ratification with the Secretary7*eneral of the United Nations as the depositary of the
+onvention, in accordance with article K$.
@ith the deposit of the act of ratification, the DState establishes on the international plane its
consent to be bound by a treatyE. !atification, li1e other acts of consent, ma1es the
international human rights norms guaranteed in the treaty legally effective vis7U7vis the State
and obliges it to report to the international community on measures adopted to align its
legislation, policy and practice with international standards. The significance of this differs
from country to country and will be discussed below.
Some States have a one7step process to express their consent to be bound, namely
a**ession. 5t consists of the deposit of an instrument of accession with the depositary and
has the same legal effect as ratification< however, unli1e ratification, it is not preceded by
signature.
=or regional integration organi9ations, the process is similar to the two7step process referred
to above, with signature by the organi9ation followed by for/al *onfir/ation.
States and regional integration organi9ations can decide to ratify and"or accede to both the
+onvention and its -ptional #rotocol or to the +onvention only. Such intention needs to be
reflected in the instrument executed and deposited. ) precondition for signing and ratifying
the -ptional #rotocol is having signed and ratified the +onvention, although the two may
occur simultaneously at the same signing ceremony.
Reservations and de*larations
)t the moment of signature, ratification or accession of the +onvention, States and regional
integration organi9ations may wish to adBust the application of the treaty by means of lodging
a reservation. The Nienna +onvention on the Haw of Treaties 4art. ', para. $ 4d66 defines a
reservation as follows:
a unilateral statement. ho$ever phrased or named. made by a State $hen signing.
ratifying. accepting. approving or acceding to a treaty. $hereby it purports to e3clude
or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to
that State9
States can also lodge declarations at the moment of signature, ratification or accession.
,eclarations are statements of understanding of a matter contained in the +onvention or an
interpretation of a particular provision. Unli1e reservations, declarations do not purport to
exclude or modify the legal effects of a treaty but rather to clarify the meaning of certain
provisions. owever, some declarations might amount to reservations.
%)
5n some cases reservations and declarations could be the symptom of a State0s lac1 of will
to implement the +onvention fully, e.g., a State may mas1 its lac1 of will by invo1ing
conflicting cultural principles. 5n other cases reservations and declarations could be the
expression of a State0s legitimate and serious concern related to the inade2uacy of its
national resources to cope with the obligations derived from the +onvention. States may be
tempted to lodge reservations to gain more time for implementation. States may decide to
modify or limit some of the tougher provisions to avoid being blamed by the international
community for not implementing the +onvention properly. 5f reservations are inevitable, it is
important to limit their impact to the absolute minimum. Foth vague and specific reservations
deserve attention when monitoring a treaty. =or example, through its authoritative
interpretations, the +ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities can circumscribe
reservations of apparent general and indeterminate scope.
5n any case, reservations are not to be encouraged and the facilitator should find ways to
ma1e this clear when presenting this module, ta1ing into account the audience.
)rticle K. of the +onvention allows parties to lodge reservations provided that these are not
incompatible with its obBect and purpose. ) State that obBects may notify the United Nations
Secretary7*eneral. The Secretary7*eneral circulates any obBection received. -bBections to
declarations generally focus on whether the statement is merely an interpretative declaration
or is, in fact, a reservation that would modify the legal effects of the treaty. )n obBecting
State sometimes re2uests that the declaring State should clarify its intention. 5f the declaring
State agrees that it has formulated a reservation instead of a declaration, it may withdraw its
reservation or confirm that its statement is only a declaration.
)fter a reservation is circulated, other State parties have $' months in which they can obBect
to the reservation, beginning on the date the notification of reservation was deposited or the
date on which the State or regional integration organi9ation expressed its consent to be
bound by the treaty, whichever is later. @hen a State lodges an obBection to a reservation
with the Secretary7*eneral after the end of the $'7month period, the Secretary7*eneral
circulates it as a Dcommunication.E Hodging a complaint does not force a State to withdraw it.
owever, it does put political pressure on the State ma1ing the reservation and could lead to
the voluntary withdrawal of the reservation either immediately or over a period of time.
=urthermore, as a result of obBecting to a reservation, a State might regard a treaty as not
being in effect between itself and the State ma1ing the reservation3or at least not in relation
to the provision to which the reservation has been made.
Treaty7monitoring bodies have consistently sought to restrict the scope of reservations and
encourage their withdrawal. The uman !ights +ommittee, for example, has set out its
position in its general comment No. 'K 4$%%K6 on issues relating to reservations made upon
ratification or accession to the +ovenant or the -ptional #rotocols thereto, or in relations to
declarations under article K$ of the +ovenant. !elying on the test that reservations
incompatible with the obBect and purpose of the treaty are not permitted, the +ommittee
indicates areas where it believes reservations are inadmissible. These include articles
considered peremptory norms. The +ommittee 2ueries whether reservations to non7
derogable rights are permissible. Similarly, the +ommittee holds that reservations to
measures that create the supportive machinery for the enBoyment of rights, such as the right
to a remedy, are not acceptable. The +ommittee considers that it falls on itself to determine
whether a reservation is incompatible with the obBect and purpose of the treaty, partly
because the +ommittee indicates that the nature of a human rights treaty ma1es it
inappropriate for State parties to ma1e the decision and partly because the +ommittee
cannot avoid ma1ing such an assessment in the performance of its functions.
%+
Stakeholders involved in supporting treaty bodies. enhancing the universal periodic revie$
7)PR8 and!or interacting $ith national authorities that are embarking on or completing the
ratification process should advocate ratification $ithout reservations9
=inally, it is important to note that existing reservations may be modified. Such a
modification may result in a partial withdrawal or could create new exemptions from, or
modifications to, the legal effects of certain provisions 4resulting in a new reservation6. )
State or regional integration organi9ation may withdraw any reservation it has made to the
+onvention or -ptional #rotocol at any time. The withdrawal must be in writing and signed
by the ead of State, ead of *overnment or minister for foreign affairs, or a person having
full powers for that purpose issued by one of those authorities. )s with reservations, it is
possible to modify or withdraw declarations.
State parties to the +onvention have lodged a range of reservations and declarations, some
of which have attracted obBections from other State parties.
@ith regard to the concept of DconsentE and its implications, )ustralia declared Dits
understanding that the +onvention allows for compulsory assistance or treatment of
persons, including measures ta1en for the treatment of mental disability, where such
treatment is necessary, as a last resort and subBect to safeguardsE. Foth =rance and
the Netherlands declared their understanding of the term VconsentV and its
application: 4$6 consent given by a person who is able to consent< and 4'6 in the case
of persons who are not able to give their consent, permission given by their
representative or an authority or body provided for by law.
Malta, Monaco and #oland made reservations and declarations stressing that the
+onvention shall not be interpreted in a way conferring an individual right to abortion.
The Syrian )rab !epublic DunderstandsE that being a signatory of the +onvention
Ddoes not in any way imply recognition of 5srael or entry into relations with 5srael, in
any shape or form, in connection with the +onvention.E
)9erbaiBan declares that Dit is unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of
the +onvention in the territories occupied by the !epublic of )rmenia until these
territories are liberated from occupation.E
=rance and several other States obBected to the declaration made by the 5slamic
!epublic of 5ran to exclude the application of those provisions of the +onvention that
are deemed incompatible with 5ranian laws. )ccording to =rance, the 5slamic
!epublic of 5ran made a Dreservation of general and indeterminate scope. This
reservation is vague, failing to specify the relevant provisions of the +onvention or
the domestic laws to which the 5slamic !epublic of 5ran wishes to give preference.
+onse2uently, it does not allow other States parties to 1now the extent of the
commitment of the 5slamic !epublic of 5ran and could render the +onvention
ineffective.E
)ustria, the +9ech !epublic, the Netherlands, #ortugal, Slova1ia and Sweden
obBected a reservation made by 8l Salvador to sign the +onvention Dto the extent that
its provisions do not preBudice or violate the provisions of any of the precepts,
principles and norms enshrined in the +onstitution of the !epublic of 8l Salvador,
particularly in its enumeration of principles.E Fy not specifying the extent of the
%*
derogation, the reservation was incompatible with the obBect and purpose of the
+onvention, according to these States.
The +9ech !epublic, #ortugal, Spain and Sweden obBected to Thailand0s
interpretative declaration subBecting article $? of the +onvention to conformity with
Thai laws, regulations and practices. The reservation ma1es it unclear to what extent
Thailand considers itself bound by the obligations of article $?, putting in 2uestion
Thailand0s commitment to the obBect and purpose of the +onvention as regards the
rights associated with liberty of movement and nationality.

)n*or2oration into the legal s1ste/ of the ratif1ing State
-nce international ratification has ta1en place, the State has expressed its consent to be
bound by the treaty and the +onvention has entered into force for it. owever, it should not
be assumed that the +onvention has automatically become part of its national law.
There are two main approaches to incorporating treaties within the domestic legal system,
usually as a result of legal traditions and often reflected in national constitutions.
(onist countries assume that domestic law and international law form one system of law.
5nternational law does not need to be translated into national law. The act of ratifying an
international agreement immediately incorporates it into national law. 5nternational law can
be directly applied by a national Budge and directly invo1ed by citi9ens, Bust as if it were
national law. ) Budge can declare a national rule invalid if it contradicts international rules. 5n
some States, international law always has priority while others adopt the le3 posteriori rule.
5n some State parties to the +onvention, such as )rgentina, +hile, +osta !ica, +roatia,
ungary, Mali, Niger, Matar, Slovenia and Spain, the provisions of the +onvention have
direct legal effect on the national legal framewor1 and are in principle directly applicable,
including in courts of law. 5n relation to other human rights treaties, such as the 5nternational
+ovenant on 8conomic, Social and +ultural !ights, individuals have gone to court with
allegations of breaches of treaty rights and won compensation or reparation.
5n dualist countries, the international and national legal systems are seen as separate. The
international human rights treaties to which these States are a party have no force, as such,
within their domestic legal systems and domestic legislation must be adopted to incorporate
the treaty into the domestic legal order. @hile some State parties have made amendments
to their legislation to ensure compliance with the +onvention, it appears that the steps ta1en
so far fall short of giving direct effect to the +onvention in the domestic system.
5f a dualist country does not translate an international treaty into domestic law, for example,
out of negligence or because the purpose of the ratification"accession was merely political,
its implementation will remain uncertain. 5f the State does not translate the +onvention into
national law once it has ratified it, those in most need of having its provisions applied might
not be protected by it. 8xamples of dualist countries are )ustralia, +anada, 5ndia, Qenya,
Malawi, South )frica, United Qingdom and Pambia.
uman rights treaty bodies have often recommended incorporation of their treaties into the
domestic legal order so as to reali9e their full potential. =or example, in its general comment
No. C$ 4'((K6 on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the
+ovenant, the uman !ights +ommittee, while noting that the 5nternational +ovenant on
+ivil and #olitical !ights does not explicitly re2uire State parties to incorporate the
+ovenant, expressed the view Dthat +ovenant guarantees may receive enhanced protection
in those States where the +ovenant is automatically or through specific incorporation part of
the domestic legal orderE and invited State parties to proceed accordingly.
%,
The +ommittee on 8conomic, Social and +ultural !ights expressed similar views in its
general comment No. % 4$%%?6 on the domestic application of the +ovenant: Dlegally binding
international human rights standards should operate directly and immediately within the
domestic legal systemE and Dwhile the +ovenant does not formally oblige States to
incorporate its provisions in domestic law, such an approach is desirableE.
8ven in countries where it is necessary for legislation to refer to or reproduce the content of
a treaty, Budges have in some cases developed innovative ways of ma1ing use of
international standards. =or example, although South )frica is not a party to the 5nternational
+ovenant on 8conomic Social and +ultural !ights, its +onstitutional +ourt has used general
comments of the +ommittee on 8conomic, Social and +ultural !ights to interpret the context
of economic, social and cultural rights in the South )frican +onstitution.
'ierar*h1 of the Convention in the legal s1ste/ of States
5n States where the +onvention is directly applicable, it has been assigned different levels
within the domestic hierarchy of laws. +osta !ica, for example, recogni9es conventions as
being on the same level as the +onstitution. 5n )rgentina, a bill was presented to parliament
so that the +onvention would be recogni9ed as being at constitutional level, similar to other
human rights treaties. 5n several States, such as +roatia, Mali, Mexico and Niger,
international human rights treaties to which they are a party are regarded as standing above
national laws.
uman rights treaty bodies have often re2uested clarity regarding the place of their treaties
in the domestic legal hierarchy. They have also consistently expressed appreciation to
States that have recogni9ed human rights treaties as holding constitutional status, which is
not always the case.
5n its general comment No. C$ 4'((K6, the uman !ights +ommittee explicitly noted the
important status of international human rights treaties, which Dflows directly from the
principle contained in article 'J of the Nienna +onvention on the Haw of Treaties, according
to which a State #arty Imay not invo1e the provisions of its internal law as Bustification for its
failure to perform a treaty0E. 5t noted that this principle Doperates so as to prevent States
parties from invo1ing provisions of the constitutional law or other aspects of domestic law to
Bustify a failure to perform or give effect to obligations under the treatyE.
!eservations lodged by States that do not recogni9e the predominance of the +onvention
on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities if there is a conflict between it and their
constitutional or national laws might present challenges in view of article 'J of the Nienna
+onvention. +onse2uently, even a State with a dualist system should at the very least not
invo1e national law as a reason not to respect the +onvention, even if the +onvention
cannot be directly invo1ed in national courts without an additional act of parliament.
Pro/oting ratifi*ation@ roles of different a*tors
E3ecutive
+onsult with line ministries
5dentify a focal point for ratification
old a national consultation
!eview laws and policies
5dentify any gaps in protection
Underta1e a national interest analysis
%9
Ma1e ratification a national obBective
5dentify good practices in the region
!e2uest assistance from the United Nations
2ther steps#
Parliament
+hec1 if the *overnment intends to ratify
Use parliamentary procedure to encourage ratification, such as 2uestions to the
minister
Submit a private member0s bill
8ncourage parliamentary debate
Mobili9e public opinion
,iscourage reservations and declarations
!aise awareness of the +onvention and the ratification process
8ncourage ratification of the +onvention and its -ptional #rotocol
(ore#
+ivil society
=orm a coalition to support ratification
+ontact international civil society organi9ations
Set out a timeline and lobbying strategy
Haunch a media awareness campaign
old a national conference
,evelop and see1 funding for a programme on ratification
Meet representatives of parliament, line ministries, national human rights institution,
etc.
!aise ratification with the donor community
)s1 what the United Nations is doing
*ational human rights institution
Underta1e research on the rights of persons with disabilities
!aise ratification in annual reports to parliament
5ssue press releases supporting ratification
!aise awareness in the community
+ooperate with ,#-s on ratification
8nsure own capacity related to the +onvention
)nited *ations country team
,iscuss ratification with *overnment partners
+ompile good practice from the region
!aise awareness about the +onvention
#rovide expert advice to the *overnment and civil society partners
#rovide technical assistance to national focal points and N!5s
!aise ratification with the international community
Support ratification through media communications
,evelop a programme to support ratification
)0
5%D&6( A
5(#S&R(S ?%R )5P6(5(NT#T)%N
)NTR%D&CT)%N
-hat i/2le/entation /easures does the Convention re7uire.
)rticle K 4$6 4a6 indicates in broad terms the implementation measures needed for the full
reali9ation of the rights of persons with disabilities, without discrimination. 5t re2uires States:
To adopt all appropriate legislative. administrative and other measures for the
implementation of the rights recogni1ed in the present +onvention9
)t least three aspects of this subparagraph need to be highlighted. =irst of all, the article
refers to adopting DallE appropriate measures. This suggests that implementation should be
comprehensive, in that it should cover all possible measures relevant to the +onvention.
)rticle K sets out some of these measures, which will be explored in greater detail below.
=urthermore, much of the +onvention sets out specific implementation measures in relation
to specific rights. 5t is worth loo1ing at any article to understand the types of measures
necessary to put the +onvention into practice. The reference to DallE appropriate measures
can also be understood as a flexibility device: in other words, no options are left out and
different States might identify different options for implementation, in 1eeping with their legal
and cultural contexts.
Secondly, the article refers to all DappropriateE measures. 5n other words, the measures must
be appropriate in the light of the principles and obligations in the +onvention. They must
respect the +onvention and promote its principles. They must be consistent with it.
Thirdly, the article refers explicitly to legislative and administrative measures, but it also
refers to DotherE measures. This is in 1eeping with the other human rights treaties. @hile
legal and administrative measures are important to implement an international treaty,
measures to implement human rights treaties fully go far beyond legal and administrative
measures and cover education, funding, development, social programmes, institution7
building, Budicial measures and more. +onse2uently, such measures must be broad if
implementation of the +onvention is to be effective. ) narrow understanding of the treaty as
re2uiring only legal measures 4e.g., without funding measures6 ris1s leading to good laws
that are not applied.
) whole range of implementation measures might be relevant, such as:
5dentifying focal points, coordination mechanisms and other institutions within the
*overnment to support implementation
8nsuring that laws and budgets are in line with the +onvention
Ma1ing sure that laws, policies and institutions are fully funded
,elivering services that are inclusive of persons with disabilities
!aising awareness about the +onvention
Training professionals
Underta1ing research, data collection, analysis, surveys on disability rights
!esearching and developing accessible technology
8nsuring that effective remedies exist when rights are not respected.
)1
This module examines a range of implementation measures, such as law reform to ensure
that laws and policies respect the +onvention through to the provision of ade2uate services
and institution7building.
Many of the implementation measures examined in this module ta1e time and resources.
Many participants will want to 1now what practical steps they could ta1e immediately after
ratification or even after the training. +onse2uently, before examining each implementation
measure in greater detail, it is worth considering some more immediate steps that can be
ta1en to start the implementation process. These include:
5dentify a +onvention focal point in the *overnment
5dentify focal points in line ministries
Ma1e or Boin civil society coalitions for the +onvention
5ssue a press release on the +onvention0s ratification
Ma1e the +onvention available in local languages and in accessible formats
)dvocate for implementation at the national, regional and local levels
!eview laws, policies and budgets
!aise awareness with professionals 4service providers, lawyers, Budges, public
servants, parliamentarians, O6
!eview the accessibility of public facilities"services
Underta1e a baseline study of the situation of persons with disabilities in the country
5dentify gaps in understanding of or capacity related to the +onvention
)NST)T&T)%N4$&)6D)NG ?%R )5P6(5(NT#T)%N
)nstitutions re7uired under the Convention +art. 00,
Fefore examining various implementation measures more closely, it is worth referring briefly
to article CC, which sets out three particularly relevant ones 4see also module .6: focal
points, coordination mechanisms and independent monitoring mechanisms.
?o*al 2oints@ )rticle CC, paragraph $, re2uires a focal point or focal points within the
*overnment with responsibility for matters relating to the implementation of the +onvention.
The +onvention does not specify who could act as focal point 4a ministry, a department in a
ministry, a single person and so on6.
Coordination /e*hanis/s@ The same paragraph re2uires States to give due consideration
to the establishment or designation of a coordination mechanism within the *overnment to
facilitate action related to the implementation of the +onvention. )lthough optional, such a
coordination mechanism could be beneficial by ensuring that all ministries and all levels of
government 4central, provincial and local6 are wor1ing together to implement the +onvention
and disability issues do not remain stuc1 in one ministry 4such as health or social affairs6.
=ocal points and coordination mechanisms ensure that there is an authority in the country
with ongoing responsibility for implementation. Fy itself, this might not necessarily lead to
effective implementation: the focal point and"or coordination mechanism also has to have
financial bac1ing to follow up on implementation, as well as have the relevant expertise.
8ffective participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organi9ations
should also help ma1e focal points and coordination mechanisms effective. @ithout effective
focal points and"or coordination mechanisms, the ris1 is that no one will be responsible for
moving the +onvention0s standards from the international level to the national level so that
they have real meaning.
)2
Some issues to bear in mind:
8nsure that the focal point and"or coordination mechanism is clearly established,
e.g., in law
8nsure that the focal point and"or coordination mechanism is sufficiently staffed
8nsure that the focal point and"or coordination mechanism has funding to carry out
its tas1s
8nsure that the focal point and"or coordination mechanism is sufficiently close to
decision ma1ers with authority so that advice on implementation and coordination is
acted upon
8nsure that the focal point and"or coordination mechanism is not relegated to a
ministry or department with relatively little authority, and if it is, ensure that the focal
point is sufficiently high up so that it has authority to act and is connected through an
effective coordination mechanism with other relevant ministries so that +onvention>
related action cuts across the *overnment
+larify in the focal point0s terms of reference that it is there to facilitate
implementation but not to be the sole *overnment institution responsible for the
+onvention 4the effect of which could be to sideline the +onvention and
implementation rather than mainstream disability rights6
#rovide the focal point and coordination mechanism with terms of reference so that
their roles are clear
Some li1ely initial tas1s of the focal point might be:
Map laws and strategies as a first step in the legal reform
8nsure that other parts of government are aware of the ratification 4other ministries,
parliament, etc.6
)lert civil society as a first step towards holding effective consultations on
implementation
8stablish an interministerial tas1 force on the +onvention
Ma1e contact with other levels of government, such as local or State
,raw up a list of actions and identify which ministries are responsible for which
actions
8nsure that a budget is allocated to its wor1 in next year0s wor1plan
old a national conference or consultation
+ontact media organi9ations to highlight what the *overnment is doing to put the
+onvention into practice
Translate the +onvention into local languages
Fe aware of the +ommittee0s reporting guidelines
)nde2endent /onitoring /e*hanis/s@ )rticle CC, paragraph ', on the other hand, focuses
on establishing a structure to oversee the implementation of the +onvention. 5t re2uires
States to maintain, strengthen, designate or establish one or more independent mechanisms
to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the +onvention. 5mportantly, in setting up
such mechanisms, States have to ta1e into account Dthe principles relating to the status and
functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rightsE, otherwise
1nown as the #aris #rinciples. 5n other words, the mechanisms must meet internationally
agreed standards of independence, plurality and operating.
%ther institutions relevant to i/2le/entation
Courts@ State parties are also re2uired to promote appropriate training on the +onvention
for the Budiciary in accordance with article $C. D5n order to help to ensure effective access to
)(
Bustice for persons with disabilities, States #arties shall promote appropriate training for
those wor1ing in the field of administration of Bustice, including police and prison staff.E
Training should include training for Budges and lawyers on the rights of persons with
disabilities and on the international commitments of States under the +onvention so that
cases are dealt with in accordance with international law. 5n addition, courts should be
physically accessible to persons with disabilities and their information must also be
accessible 4documents in Fraille, websites using screen7readable formats, sign7language
interpretation in court and so on6.
Parlia/ents@ #arliaments have a crucial role to play in implementing the +onvention, by
adopting legislation but also by holding the executive accountable for policies and strategies
as well as service delivery. #arliaments also have an important role in the budget process.
@hile the +onvention does not refer to parliaments, strengthening them, by ma1ing them
accessible and raising awareness among parliamentarians about disability rights and
persons with disabilities as 1ey constituents, can have a potentially strong impact on the
+onvention0s implementation.
Parti*i2ation of *ivil so*iet1
The +onvention also stipulates that *ivil so*iet1, particularly persons with disabilities and
their representative organi9ations, should participate fully in all aspects of this monitoring
process, Bust as they are to be involved in the development and implementation of policies,
programmes and legislation to implement the +onvention, in line with article K.
This reference to civil society raises at least two issues:
4a6 +ivil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative
organi9ations, should be involved in the monitoring process underta1en by the
independent monitoring mechanism established under article CC 4and ideally also in
the wor1 of focal points and coordination mechanisms6<
4b6 +ivil society itself has a role to play in monitoring the +onvention, independently of
the other mechanisms established under article CC.
6#-S P%6)C)(S #ND $&DG(TS
6aw refor/
A duty to reform la$s
)rticle K 4$6 4b6 of the +onvention obliges State parties to Dta1e all appropriate measures,
including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices
that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilitiesE.
5n addition, States underta1e to adopt appropriate legislative and administrative measures
and, in article K 4$6 4c6, to ta1e into account the protection and promotion of the human rights
of persons with disabilities in all policies.
+onse2uently, an important step in implementing the +onvention is to review the national
legislation and policy framewor1 comprehensive so as to:
Modify or abolish discriminatory laws
)dopt new legislative measures to ensure future implementation
)%
) review of existing laws 4and policies6 is a duty that applies to all State parties. 8ven in
States where the +onvention is automatically applicable, there will still be a need to ensure
that all relevant domestic law, including regional or customary law, is brought into
compliance with the +onvention.
'ngredients for compliance
)spects of article K and other provisions in the +onvention identify some of the factors to
bear in mind when reviewing and reforming laws:
- Ma1e explicit references to the +onvention in domestic legislation so that there is a
clear lin1 between the international and national standards, and the various
standards in the +onvention become part of national law
- Ma1e sure the understanding of DdisabilityE is in line with the social"human rights
understanding of the term set out in the +onvention. 5n other words, ensure that
DdisabilityE is seen as the result of the interaction between an individual0s
DimpairmentE and an unwelcoming environment
- ,efine Idiscrimination0 in 1eeping with the +onvention. )rticle ' defines
Ddiscrimination on the basis of disabilityE in broad terms. 5t includes distinctions,
exclusions or restrictions which have the purpose or the effect of impairing or
nullifying the rights of persons with disabilities. This is a very broad understanding of
discrimination which re2uires at the very least the prohibition of discrimination on the
ground of disability in all areas but also legal measures that prevent discrimination in
the first place as well as measures to promote e2uality between persons with and
without disabilities
- !eview all relevant legislation, not Bust legislation specifically or only related to
disability rights. This is important, as many areas of law and policy can have an
impact on the enBoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities, even when
disabilities or persons with disabilities are not referred to. +onsider the following
areas of law:
o The constitution
o Non7discrimination laws and regulations
o +omprehensive disability law and regulations
o *uardianship rules
o +riminal law
o 8ducation laws and policies
o ealth laws and policies
o Social protection laws and policies
o +onstruction laws and regulations
o Habour laws and policies
o #rivacy laws and policies
o 8lection laws and regulations
o 5mmigration laws and policies
o +hild protection laws and policies
o 5ntellectual property laws
- 5dentify rights7holders< in particular, ma1e sure that the diversity of disability is
respected so that disability legislation does not exclude any Drights7holdersE.
+onse2uently, it should be clear that domestic legislation and policy protect persons
who have physical disabilities, mental or psychosocial disabilities, intellectual
disabilities or sensory disabilities 4such as persons who are deaf, blind or deaf7blind6
- 5dentify duty7bearers, including different levels of government, and private actors and
their clear responsibilities. Two aspects deserve to be underlined here:
))
o 8nsure the reform covers all levels of government: local, provincial as well as
central. )rticle K 4$6 4d6 re2uires States to ensure that public authorities and
institutions act in conformity with the +onvention. #ublic authorities include
not only central authorities but also provincial and local authorities, which
often have important roles in areas such as service delivery for persons with
disabilities
o 8nsure that the private sector is regulated. )rticle K 4$6 4e6 re2uires States to
ta1e all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of
disability by any person. organi1ation or private enterprise. #rivate individuals
as well as organi9ations"enterprises have duties in relation to persons with
disabilities, at the very least, not to discriminate against them
- 5dentify the institutional framewor1 for promoting and protecting the rights of persons
with disabilities. )rticle CC sets out three mechanisms for implementation and
monitoring: focal points in the *overnment, coordination mechanisms in the
*overnment and independent mechanisms for the promotion, protection and
monitoring of the +onvention. -ther institutions, such as parliamentary committees
and the Budiciary, also have roles which legislation can identify
- Ma1e provision for secondary legislation, administrative measures and budgetary
measures. This is fundamental to the success of law reform. #rimary legislation
without directives on how to implement it or without financial or human resources will,
in many cases, be difficult if not impossible to implement
5t is relevant to note that higher standards of protection should prevail: if the +onvention0s
provisions are wea1er on certain issues than the law currently applicable in the State, then
the national standard should of course be applied. ,uring consultations with ,#-s in
)ustralia, it was stated that the +onvention potentially establishes a different standard of
compliance between State and non7State actors 4i.e., a lower standard for non7State actors6.
*iven the extensive role of the private sector in the provision of public goods and services in
)ustralia, such as in the development and provision of disability7specific services, aids and
appliances, and in the shaping of social attitudes, ,#-s called on the )ustralian
*overnment to declare that )ustralia would not limit itself to DfosteringE or DencouragingE or
DpromotingE or DencouragingE non7State actors to observe the rights set out in the
+onvention, but might in some situations re2uire the private sector to ta1e on responsibilities
on a basis e2uivalent to that of State actors.
Ensuring effective remedies
=or rights to have meaning, effective remedies must be available to redress violations, and
legislation should ensure that courts and other tribunals have the authority to receive
complaints of non7compliance with rights. This re2uirement is implicit in the +onvention and
consistently referred to in the context of the other maBor human rights treaties. 5mportantly,
persons with disabilities who suffer discrimination in any field should have access to Bustice.
+onse2uently, remedies should cover all human rights3civil and political rights as well as
economic, social and cultural rights. The right to a remedy in the event of abuse of rights
should be established in law and legislation should identify the means through which
remedies are provided.
@hen discussing remedies, Budicial remedies are often the first that come to mind. Monist
approaches may have advantages in this respect. Fy ratifying the +onvention, a monist
State will automatically be bound by its principles and obBectives. 5ndividuals in that State,
including persons with disabilities, who have been denied specific rights for example
because domestic legislation is wea1 on the matter can invo1e the +onvention in a national
courtroom and as1 the Budge to apply the +onvention and decide that the national law is
invalid. The Budge does not have to wait for the +onvention to be translated into national law:
)+
the treaty has been ratified and its provisions are, in principle, directly applicable. -f course,
the monist approach will have an advantage so long as the national Budges are competent
and familiar with international standards and human rights.
8ven in States where the +onvention is not directly applicable, ratification of or accession to
it encourages the Budiciary to apply domestic law in a manner that is consistent with it. Fy
translating the +onvention into national law, dualist States enable their courts to apply the
+onvention in their Budgements.
owever, it is important to consider other remedies, too. =irst, other remedies might be more
appropriate. =or example, problems arising in service delivery might be better dealt with by
consumer tribunals or through administrative remedies national human rights commissions,
ombudsmen, e2uality commissions, disability commissioners and so on. These can be much
easier to access, even without a lawyer, and can be cheaper and less intimidating. Similarly,
mediation and arbitration might be preferable in some cases as they can be less
confrontational and rely on solutions 4remedies6 that are agreeable to all parties. Habour
inspectors and school inspectors might provide a means of holding employers and
education professionals accountable and, as a result, provide solutions 4remedies6 that are
2uic1er, cheaper and ultimately more effective than Budicial remedies.
Second, other remedies might be shorter and more certain. 5n some countries, the Budiciary
is dysfunctional or insufficiently resourced to ensure access to Bustice. 5n such situations,
individuals might have little faith in the court system and be put off from filing a complaint for
the denial of their rights. !emedies which are easier to access might provide alternatives to
processes uncertain to bring relief.
Third, traditional forms of Bustice might be preferable, particularly in poor, rural areas. 5n
many countries there is a lac1 of tribunals and courts in the areas outside the capital district
and main urban centres. This situation is particularly critical for persons with disabilities
living in remote areas. #overty or extreme poverty can affect these areas, ma1ing it
impossible to move around freely and reach urban areas for legal or other support.
Nevertheless, for persons with disabilities, traditional systems are not always a panacea
because of stigma and preBudice. ,ecisions could then reflect traditional approaches that
isolate persons with disabilities or give them une2ual treatment. #rogrammes to raise
awareness should therefore involve traditional authorities, including elders and community
leaders, integrating elements of non7discrimination and participation in local remedies.
Relevant actors
@ho should be involved in law review and reformA This is a non7exhaustive list:
- #arliamentary committees, such as human rights committees
- Ministry of Bustice or attorney7general0s office
- Sectoral ministries, such as social affairs, health, education, labour, interior, etc.
- =ocal points and coordination mechanisms
- National human rights institution, e2uality commission, ombudsman, etc.
- -rgani9ations of persons with disabilities
- -ther civil society organi9ations, such as human rights N*-s, development N*-s,
etc.
- United Nations agencies, regional human rights organi9ations, such as the +ouncil of
8urope, the )frican +ommission, 5nter7)merican +ommission, etc.
- 5nternational experts on the +onvention
- )cademics
- 5nternational development agencies
)*
Process
8ach State will have its own process for underta1ing law and policy reform. owever,
following certain principles will ensure that the process is inclusive of persons with
disabilities and other relevant actors and is also effective.
5mportantly, article K 4C6 stresses that States should consult and actively involve persons
with disabilities, through their representative organi9ations, in the development of legislation
and policies to implement the +onvention and in other decision7ma1ing processes
concerning them. Their participation should therefore underpin the entire law and policy
reform.
Some ste2s in law review and reform are:
- 5dentify all laws directly or indirectly relevant to the +onvention 4see next section6
- !eview laws for consistency with the +onvention
- Underta1e a national interest analysis, including an open consultation
- old a public hearing in parliament
- )ssess the types of legislation needed, e.g., comprehensive disability law and"or
non7discrimination law and"or sectoral laws including disability rights provisions
- ,raft amendments to legislation
- ,ebate amendments in parliament
- +onsider drafting a national human rights action plan for implementation
- )dopt secondary legislation"regulations
- 8nsure funding of new provisions
- 5nclude process and amendments in the initial report to the +ommittee on the !ights
of #ersons with ,isabilities.
Poli*ies
Haws translate international commitments into the domestic legal framewor1 and often lead
to real improvements in the human rights situation on the ground.
owever, in many cases, policies can be important to accelerate implementation. @hile laws
set out rights and obligations, policies can set out steps to achieve time7bound goals so that
obligations are met. #olicies are particularly relevant to the progressive reali9ation of
economic, social and cultural rights. owever, policies are also relevant to civil and political
rights 4for example, improving the administration of Bustice6. Many policies are relevant to the
+onvention, such as:
The national development strategy 4or poverty reduction strategy6
Sectoral development strategies 4health, education, social protection, vulnerable
communities, etc.6
National human rights strategy and action plan
,isability rights strategy and action plan
,isaster preparedness and response plan
#olicies are not a one7off< they have a lifespan:
Diagnosis@ ) diagnosis is re2uired to identify strengths, wea1nesses, opportunities
and threats. =or example, a national development strategy should be analysed to
identify whether development programmes ta1e into account the rights of persons
with disabilities, whether development is accessible to them, whether development
),
programmes unintentionally create additional barriers 4e.g., by building inaccessible
schools6 and so on.
?or/ulation@ -n the basis of the diagnosis, the policy should be formulated.
)chievable benchmar1s and indicators should be identified. The formulation should
be such that there as many connections as possible with specific provisions of the
+onvention. )n education policy should refer to article 'K so that it explicitly
recogni9es the right to inclusive education and provides for training for teachers on
inclusion as well as specific education services to persons with disabilities such as
support in the classroom or materials in Fraille and the teaching of sign language.
#ersons with disabilities and their representative organi9ations should be involved at
all stages of the policy formulation.
#do2tion@ #olicyma1ers should adopt the policy and publish it. Transparency is very
important. 5t enables civil society, including persons with disabilities, to identify the
extent to which consultative processes have actually influenced the policy, and it
encourages implementation because everyone is aware of it and can support it.
)/2le/entation@ The policy should be implemented according to the strategies and
action plan. 5mplementation should respect the +onvention0s principles: it should
avoid discrimination 4include persons with disabilities, not create new barriers,
respect the diversity of disability, e.g., physical, sensory, mental and intellectual6, it
should be as participatory as possible< it should be transparent and accountable< it
should promote e2uality between men and women and so on.
(valuation. 5mplementation should be reviewed to examine whether benchmar1s
have been met. 8valuation is important in and of itself to see what wor1ed and what
did not wor1 so that the policy can be fine7tuned. Moreover, evaluation can feed into
the State0s reporting process to the +ommittee.
5n many ways, this corresponds to what is 1nown as a human rights7based approach. This
approach has three main elements:
5t stresses participation, non7discrimination, transparency and accountability. The
+onvention reinforces these principles and adds others 4see art. C6, such as
inclusion, respect for autonomy, accessibility, respect for difference and respect for
the evolving capacities of children.
5t explicitly lin1s policies to meeting human rights standards 4e.g., promoting inclusive
education, free and compulsory primary education6.
5ts aim is that policies should strengthen the capacity of rights7holders to claim their
rights and duty7bearers to meet their obligations.
The World Report on Disability9s re*o//endations on national strategies and 2lans
of a*tion
The "orld Report on ,isability
J
ma1es nine recommendations. They are reproduced here to
illustrate how the +onvention could be implemented around the world. owever, they are not
the only steps that States should ta1e to implement the +onvention.
Some recommendations are relevant to law and policy reform.
!ecommendation C: )dopt a national disability strategy and plan of action
?@A A national disability strategy sets out a consolidated and comprehensive long4
term vision for improving the $ell4being of persons $ith disabilities and should cover
*
@orld ealth -rgani9ation and @orld Fan1, "orld Report on ,isability 4*eneva, '($$6.
)9
both mainstream policy and programme areas and specific services for persons $ith
disabilities9
The development. implementation. and monitoring of a national strategy should bring
together the full range of sectors and stakeholders ?@A9
The strategy and action plan should be informed by a situation analysis. taking into
account such factors as the prevalence of disability. needs for services. social and
economic status. effectiveness and gaps in current services. and environmental and
social barriers9 ?@A The plan of action operationali1es the strategy in the short and
medium terms by laying out concrete actions and timelines for implementation.
defining targets. assigning responsible agencies. and planning and allocating
needed resources9
(echanisms are needed to make it clear $here the responsibility lies for
coordination. decision4making. regular monitoring and reporting. and control of
resources9
!ecommendation K: 5nvolve people with disabilities
People $ith disabilities often have uni-ue insights about their disability and their
situation9 'n formulating and implementing policies. la$s. and services. people $ith
disabilities should be consulted and actively involved9
,isabled people<s organi1ations may need capacity4building and support to empo$er
people $ith disabilities and advocate for their needs9 ?@A
People $ith disabilities are entitled to control over their lives and therefore need to
be consulted on issues that concern them directly B $hether in health. education.
rehabilitation. or community living9 Supported decision4making may be necessary to
enable some individuals to community their needs and choices9
$udgetar1 /easures in the *onte3t of law and 2oli*1 refor/
Fudgetary measures are essential aspects of most laws and policies. @hile some laws and
policies3such as those prohibiting certain conduct, e.g., discrimination or torture3do not
re2uire funding, most laws and policies related to human rights do, particularly in relation to
economic, social and cultural rights. Qey factors to bear in mind are:
Some provisions do not cost anything to implement
5mplementing some provisions can save money 4e.g., universal design saves money
on retrofitting later6
Some provisions can be implemented by using existing funding differently 4funding
inclusive education rather than segregated education could simply involve
reallocating budgets6
Some provisions can be implemented by using existing funds better 4here, budget
planning that is transparent and ensures accountability is important6
Some provisions can be implemented through the dedication of relatively few
additional funds 4awareness7raising through public campaigns is relatively
inexpensive but can be very effective6
5mplementing some provisions re2uires additional funds 4for example, rehabilitation
services, home care services and so on6.
+0
State duty to provide budgets
,ecision ma1ers must consider whether laws and policies have financial implications and
then they must foresee ade2uate budgets. )s noted above, before adopting laws and
policies, parliament and the executive should explicitly indicate the sums that will be
provided for implementation. @hen budgets 4and human resources6 are made available,
other measures have a much higher li1elihood of success.
The +onvention0s 1ey provision on funding is article K 4'6 4general obligations6: "ith regard
to economic. social and cultural rights. each State Party undertakes to take measures to the
ma3imum of its available resources and. $here needed. $ithin the frame$ork of
international cooperation. $ith a vie$ to achieving progressively the full reali1ation of these
rights. $ithout pre/udice to those obligations contained in the present +onvention that are
immediately applicable according to international la$9
This obligation is often misunderstood. 5t does not mean that aspects of economic, social
and cultural rights that re2uire resources"funding can be put off indefinitely. 5ndeed, the
+ommittee on 8conomic, Social and +ultural !ights has stated that economic, social and
cultural rights comprise core obligations which must be implemented immediately,
irrespective of the costs involved. -ne example is the duty to provide affordable essential
medicines as part of the right to health.
owever, where resources are re2uired and progressive reali9ation applies:
The State must ta1e steps immediately to draw up the budget and a time7bound
action plan
Time7bound benchmar1s should be set so as to guide progressive implementation
5ndicators should be identified to measure whether those benchmar1s have been
met or not
=unding should be committed so that the measures necessary to meet those
benchmar1s can be ta1en
The action plan should be monitored, using the indicators, to assess whether
implementation is on trac1 or not.
5n the light of the difficulties that poorer States have in implementing the +onvention 4as a
result of resource re2uirements6, article K 4'6 as well as article C' highlight international
cooperation as a means of helping States. )rticle C' 4$6 4d6 re2uires States to underta1e
appropriate and effective international cooperation measures including by providing. as
appropriate. technical and economic assistance.
,isability rights budgeting
5ncreasing attention is being placed on Dhuman rights budgetingE and related issues such as
gender budgeting. The experience from these areas will be important to guide budgeting for
the +onvention. The following 2uestions can help to decide whether budgets are aligned
with laws and policies to implement it:
. ow are national development policies aligned with the +onventionA
. @hat is the alignment between policy and budget processesA
. To what extent are budgets aligned with the +onvention0s priorities, standards and
goals, including their desired and real impact 4tied to the progressive reali9ation of
rights and maximum available resources6A
. To what extent are budgets aligned with both the +onvention and nationally set
prioritiesA
+1
. To what extent are budgets aligned with inclusive, transparent and accountable
processesA
. To what extent does the budget process reflect the differing roles of rights7holders,
civil society and the State as well as the dynamic relationship among themA
-ne problem facing the alignment of budgeting with law and policy processes is the
asymmetry of ownership. =or example, the asymmetries between ministries of finance,
ministries of planning, sectoral ministries, parliament and civil society can have an impact on
the ways in which budgets are aligned with policies as well as the extent to which policies
and budgets incorporate human rights principles 4e.g., of the extent to which civil society is
involved6.
The World Report on Disability9s re*o//endation on funding
The "orld Report on ,isability provides some illustrations of some funding measures that
could be relevant as well as the areas where funding is needed.
!ecommendation .: #rovide ade2uate funding and improve affordability
?@A Ade-uate and sustainable funding of publicly provided services is needed to
ensure that they reach all targeted beneficiaries and that good -uality services are
provided9 +ontracting out service provision. fostering public4private partnerships. ?@A
and devolving budget to persons $ith disabilities for consumer4directed care can
contribute to better service provision9
,uring the development of the national disability strategy and related action plans.
the affordability and sustainability of the proposed measures should be consider and
ade-uately funded9 ?@A
To improve the affordability of goods and services for people $ith disabilities and to
offset the e3tra costs associated $ith disability. ?@A consideration should be given to
e3panding health and social insurance coverage. ?@A ensuring that poor and
vulnerable people $ith disabilities benefit from poverty4targeted safety net
programmes. and introducing fee4$avers. reduced transport fares and reduced
import ta3es and duties on assistive technologies9
)NC6&S)>( S(R>)C(S
Servi*e deliver1 as a *o/2le/ent to law 2oli*1 and budget refor/
Haw and policy are very important elements in ensuring that the +onvention is translated
into the national legal and political order. owever, they should be accompanied by practical
measures to turn standards into reality for persons with disabilities. Through service
delivery, State and non7State service providers can ensure that persons with disabilities
have access to the facilities, goods and services that they are entitled to, according to the
+onvention.
Relevant se*tors
Service delivery relates to many of the +onvention0s articles, including:
- Situations of ris1 and humanitarian emergencies 4art. $$6
- Supported decision7ma1ing 4art. $'6
+2
- )dministration of Bustice 4art. $C6
- Support for victims of violence and abuse 4art. $.6
- Support for independent living 4art. $%6
- =acilitation of access to mobility aids, devices, technologies and live assistance 4art.
'(6
- #rovision of information in accessible formats 4art. '$6
- #rovision of reproductive health services 4art. 'C6
- Support, including individuali9ed support, within the general education system 4art.
'K6
- #rovision of health services and health care 4art. '/6
- #rovision of habilitation and rehabilitation services and programmes 4art. '.6
- Support for inclusive employment and vocational training 4art. 'J6
- #rovision of access to services, devices and other assistance to ensure an ade2uate
standard of living and social protection 4art. '?6
- Support for political participation, including voting 4art. '%6
- )ccess to recreational, tourism, leisure and sporting activities 4art. C(6
Servi*e deliver1 in the light of the Convention
Service delivery existed well before the adoption of the +onvention. owever, it needs to
comply with the principles and standards laid down in the +onvention if it is to contribute to
the +onvention0s effective implementation. This means that service delivery must meet the
general principles in article C of the +onvention: for example, services should not
discriminate on the basis of disability, they should respect the e2uality between men and
women, promote individual autonomy as well as ensure the participation and inclusion of
persons with disabilities. Service delivery which reinforces the segregation of persons with
disabilities would, on the face of it, not be in compliance with the +onvention.
5n addition, service delivery should comply with the specific standards in the +onvention0s
substantive articles. =or example, under article '/ on the right to health, health professionals
should provide health care to persons with disabilities on an e2ual basis with others,
including on the basis of free and informed consent. =orced treatment for example, where
this occurs on the basis of disability, would not be in compliance with the +onvention.
#*hieving in*lusive servi*es for 2ersons with disabilities
)chieving inclusive and non7discriminatory services for persons with disabilities in
compliance with the +onvention does not necessarily mean that the same services are
necessary for everyone at all times. )s with other aspects of the +onvention, service
delivery re2uires a two7trac1 approach. )t times, the +onvention re2uires access to
mainstream services on an e2ual basis with others. )t other times, specific support might be
needed for persons with disabilities so that they can enBoy the same rights as persons
without disabilities.
Three forms of services are needed to implement the +onvention:
T 5ainstrea/ servi*es: these refer to services that are used by and designed for the
whole population. 5n such cases, it is important that the services are inclusive of and
accessible to persons with disabilities. 5ndeed, accessibility is crucial: by ensuring
that facilities, goods, services, transport, information and technology are accessible,
many persons with disabilities can enBoy their rights and live independently in the
community in the same way as persons without disabilities. Some examples of
mainstream services are:
> 5nclusive education
+(
> #rimary health care made fully accessible 4information, communication and
physical environment6
T Su22ort servi*es: these refer to services that contribute directly to overcoming
barriers facing persons with disabilities and are meant to strengthen their
participation in mainstream society. 5n other words, while access to mainstream
services ensures that the same services are accessible to all persons with or without
a disability, access to support services re2uires services tailored to persons with
disabilities 4but not persons without disabilities6. 8xamples include:
> #rovision of wheelchairs and mobility aids to enable a person with a mobility
impairment to access the community
> #ersonal assistance to support someone in his or her daily tas1s
> Support for legal decision7ma1ing to help persons with disabilities enter into
contracts, write wills, etc. on an e2ual basis with others
T S2e*ifi* servi*es: these services either prepare persons with disabilities for
inclusion into mainstream society or at times replace mainstream or support services
if the person cannot be fully accommodated in the community. 5n such cases, the
services should always target inclusion and not isolation. =or example:
> ,ay care for people with severe intellectual disabilities
#*tors involved in servi*e deliver1
Many actors are involved in delivering services3mainstream, support or speciali9ed3to
persons with disabilities:
- *overnment service providers, including at the local or municipal level
- Those wor1ing in the administration of Bustice, including lawyers, Budges, prison staff,
the police, public interest litigators, etc.
- #rivate enterprise service providers
- Non7governmental service providers, e.g., not7for7profit organi9ations"N*-s
- The media
- ealth professionals
- 8ducation professionals
- Habour inspectors
- Trade unions
- 8mployers0 associations
The role of the State
=or law and policy reform, the State clearly has the lead role, but in service delivery the
private sector, national and international civil society as well as the State are involved. )t the
level of the State, the central *overnment has a regulatory role and also a service provision
role, but other levels of government, particularly municipal"local, have a role to play, too.
@hat then is the role of the StateA
The duty of the State is paramount: uman rights law identifies the State as the primary
duty7bearer to promote, protect and ensure the implementation of the +onvention.
The State must:
$. ?ulfil its duties as 2ri/ar1 dut14bearer@ The duties under the +onvention fall first
and foremost on the State. The entire +onvention establishes duties on the State to
promote, protect and ensure the rights of persons with disabilities. This does not
mean that the State must provide services itself. =or this reason, the +onvention
uses terms such as the State underta1es Dto promoteE or Dto encourageE or Dto
+%
facilitateE the provision of services. owever, at times, the State must provide
services3for example, in outlying regions or unprofitable areas where private
business might not be active or which the not7for7profit sector might be unable to
reach.
'. Regulate the 2rivate se*tor: @here private actors supply services, the State need
not duplicate these services, however, it still has a duty to regulate the private
organi9ations that supply services. The +onvention recogni9es this, especially in
article K 4$6:
States Parties undertake @ 7e8 to take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination on the basis of disability by any person. organi1ation or private
enterprise9
The broad understanding of DdiscriminationE in the +onvention means that the State
duty to regulate the private sector 4including private individuals6 goes beyond
regulating only direct discrimination. 5t should also regulate indirect discrimination 4for
example, where persons with disabilities are effectively excluded because facilities
are inaccessible or relevant services are not offered6.
The +onvention also refers to specific areas where the State should regulate the
private sector:
#**essibilit1 4art. %6: States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
Ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services $hich are open or
provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for
persons $ith disabilitiesC
?reedo/ of e32ression and a**ess to infor/ation 4art. '$6: States Parties
shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons $ith disabilities
can e3ercise the right to freedom of e3pression and opinion by urging private
entities that provide services to the general public. including through the
'nternet. to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats
for persons $ith disabilitiesC
'ealth 4art. '/6: States Parties shall re-uire health professionals to provide
care of the same -uality to persons $ith disabilities as to others. including on
the basis of free and informed consent by. inter alia. raising a$areness of the
human rights. dignity. autonomy and needs of persons $ith disabilities
through training and the promulgation of ethical standards for public and
private health careC
(/2lo1/ent 4art. 'J6: States Parties shall promote the employment of
persons $ith disabilities in the private sector through appropriate policies and
measures. $hich may include affirmative action programmes. incentives and
other measures.
C. Regulate different levels of govern/ent@ The central *overnment must also
regulate its own service provision and that of other levels of government. )rticle
K 4$6 4d6 re2uires the State to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in
conformity $ith the present +onvention. #ublic authorities should be understood in
broad terms to include authorities across different ministries in the central
*overnment but also, as noted previously, to all parts of the State, including the
provincial and local levels.
+)
The World Report on Disability9s re*o//endations on servi*es
The Report includes two recommendations relevant to service delivery:
!ecommendation $: 8nable access to all mainstream systems and services
People $ith disabilities have ordinary needs B for health and $ell4being. for
economic and social security. to learn and develop skills ?@A9 These needs can and
should be met in mainstream programmes and services9 (ainstreaming not only
fulfils the human rights of persons $ith disabilities. it is also more effective9
(ainstreaming is the process by $hich Governments and other stakeholders ensure
that persons $ith disabilities participate e-ually $ith others in any activity and service
intended for the general public. such as education. health. employment. and social
services9 5arriers to participation need to be identified and removed. possibly
re-uiring changes to la$s. policies. institutions. and environments9
(ainstreaming re-uires a commitment at all levels. and needs to be considered
across all sectors and built into ne$ and e3isting legislation. standards. policies.
strategies. and plans9 Adopting universal design and implementing reasonable
accommodations are t$o important strategies9 (ainstreaming also re-uires effective
planning. ade-uate human resources. and sufficient financial investment B
accompanied by specific measures such as targeted programmes and services to
ensure that the diverse needs of people $ith disabilities are ade-uately met9
!ecommendation ': 5nvest in specific programmes and services for people with
disabilities
'n addition to mainstream services. some people $ith disabilities may re-uire access
to specific measures. such as rehabilitation. support services. or training9
Rehabilitation B including assistive technologies such as $heelchairs. hearing aids
?@A B improves functioning and independence9 A range of $ell4regulated assistance
and support services in the community can meet needs for care. enabling people to
live independently and to participate in the economic. social. and cultural lives of
their communities9 =ocational rehabilitation and training can open labour market
opportunities9
"hile there is a need for more services. there is also a need for better. more
accessible. fle3ible. integrated. and $ell4coordinated multidisciplinary services.
particularly at times of transition such as bet$een child and adult services9 E3isting
programmes and services need to be revie$ed to assess their performance and
make changes to improve their coverage. effectiveness. and efficiency9 The changes
should be based on sound evidence. appropriate in terms of culture and other local
conte3ts. and tested locally9
#-#R(N(SS4R#)S)NG #ND TR#)N)NG
)wareness7raising, including training, is another important implementation measure. )s
disability is the result of the interaction between impairment and an unwelcoming
environment3environment refers not only to the physical environment but also to
unwelcoming attitudes and negative or inaccessible information in society3awareness7
raising and training about the +onvention are essential if the environment is to be changed.
++
#wareness4raising
)rticle ? is specifically devoted to awareness7raising, setting out a whole range of measures
that State parties should ta1e, in particular to
:
!aise awareness throughout society, including the family, to foster respect for rights
+ombat stereotypes, preBudices and harmful practices
#romote awareness of the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities.
This can be done through public awareness campaigns, the education system, the media
and awareness7training programmes.
-ther articles re2uire State parties to provide information to persons with disabilities, which
is also a form of awareness7raising. =or example, States underta1e to:
#rovide accessible information to persons with disabilities about mobility aids,
devices and assistive technologies as well as other forms of assistance, support
services and facilities 4art. K6<
#rovide to persons with disabilities information and education on how to avoid,
recogni9e and report instances of exploitation, violence and abuse 4art. $.6<
8nsure access to age7appropriate information, reproductive and family planning
education 4art. 'C6<
#rovide early and comprehensive information to children with disabilities and their
families to ensure that children with disabilities have e2ual rights with respect to
family life 4art. 'C6.
Training
)rticle K underlines the importance of training. The State is re2uired to 2ro/ote the
training of professionals and staff wor1ing with persons with disabilities in relation to the
rights in the +onvention so as to provide better assistance and services.
The +onvention promotes training in the broader community, for instance professionals as
well as of persons with disabilities. =or the former, it promotes:
Training for sta1eholders on accessibility issues 4art. %6
Training for those wor1ing in the field of administration of Bustice, including police and
prison staff 4art. $C6
Training in mobility s1ills to specialist staff wor1ing with persons with disabilities 4art.
'(6
Training to professionals and staff who wor1 at all levels of education 4including
disability awareness and the use of appropriate augmentative and alternative modes
of communication, educational techni2ues and materials to support persons with
disabilities6 4art. 'K6
Training of health professionals and the promulgation of ethical standards for public
and private health care 4art. '/6
Training for professionals and staff wor1ing in habilitation and rehabilitation services
4art. '.6
Training through international cooperation 4art. C'6.
Training for the latter3beyond the right to education itself3is referred to as follows:
+*
Training in mobility s1ills 4art. '(6
Nocational and continuing training 4arts. 'K and 'J6
Training to ensure access to assistance by persons with disabilities and their families
living in situations of poverty 4art. '?6
Training so that persons with disabilities have an opportunity to organi9e, develop
and participate in disability7specific sporting and recreational activities 4art. C(6.
The World Report on Disability9s re*o//endations on awareness4raising
The Report identifies two recommendations which are relevant to implementing the
+onvention0s provisions on awareness7raising and on training.
!ecommendation /: 5mprove human resource capacity
?@A Human resource capacity can be improved through effective education. training.
and recruitment9 A revie$ of the kno$ledge and competencies of staff in relevant
areas can provide a starting point for developing appropriate measures to improve
them9 Relevant training on disability. $hich incorporates human rights principles.
should be integrated into current curricula and accreditation programmes9 'n4service
training should be provided to current practitioners providing and managing services9
0or e3ample. strengthening the capacity of primary health4care $orkers. and
ensuring availability of specialist staff $here re-uired. contribute to effective and
affordable health care for people $ith disabilities9
(any countries have too fe$ staff $orking in fields such as rehabilitation ?@A9
,eveloping standards in training for different types and levels of ?@A personnel can
assist in addressing resource gaps9 ?@A (easures to improve staff retention may be
relevant in some settings and sectors9
!ecommendation J: 5ncrease public awareness and understanding of disability
(utual respect and understanding contribute to an inclusive society9 Therefore it is
vital to improve public understanding of disability. confront negative perceptions. and
represent disability fairly9 ?@A
+ollecting information on kno$ledge. beliefs and attitudes about disability can help
identify gaps in public understanding that can be bridged through education and
public information9 Governments. voluntary organi1ations. and professional
associations should consider running social marketing campaigns that change
attitudes on stigmati1ed issues such as H'=. mental illness. and leprosy9 'nvolving
the media is vital to the success of these campaigns and to ensuring the
dissemination of positive stories about persons $ith disabilities and their families9
R(S(#RC' #ND D(>(6%P5(NT
!esearch has had an important impact on the lives of persons with disabilities.
Technological innovations based on the principle of universal design are helping them lead
independent lives in the community. Statistics and data collection are helping the State and
others to understand the barriers facing them so that implementation measures can be
better targeted.
The +onvention refers to research7related measures in several areas:
+,
&niversall1 designed goods servi*es e7ui2/ent and fa*ilities@ article K
re2uires States to underta1e or promote research and development of universally
designed goods, services, e2uipment and facilities, which should re2uire the
minimum possible adaptation and the least cost to meet the specific needs of a
person with disabilities. The obligation extends to promoting the availability and use
of universally designed goods and services and the promotion of universal design
through the development of standards and guidelines<
New te*hnologies in*luding infor/ation and *o//uni*ation te*hnologies
/obilit1 aids devi*es and assistive te*hnologies@ article K also re2uires States
to underta1e or promote research and development of new technologies and to
promote their availability and use<
?or 2oli*1 for/ulation@ article C$ 4statistics and data collection6 re2uires States to
collect appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to enable
them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the +onvention.
=inally, at the international level, State parties collectively have a duty to facilitate
cooperation in research and access to scientific and technical 1nowledge 4art. C'6.
The World Report on Disability9s re*o//endations on resear*h
The "orld Report on ,isability includes two relevant recommendations in this regard:
!ecommendation ?: 5mprove disability data collection
'nternationally. methodologies for collecting data on people $ith disabilities need to
be developed. tested cross4culturally. and applied consistently9 ,ata need to be
standardi1ed and internationally comparable for benchmarking and monitoring
progress on disability policies. and for the implementation of the ?+onventionA
nationally and internationally9
*ationally. disability should be included in data collection9 )niform definitions of
disability. based on the ?'nternational +lassification of 0unctioningA. can allo$ for
internationally comparable data9 ?@A As a first step. national population census data
can be collected in line $ith recommendations from the )nited *ations "ashington
Group on ,isability and the )nited *ations Statistical +ommission9 A cost4effective
and efficient approach is to include disability -uestions B or a disability module B in
e3isting sample surveys ?@ A9 ,ata need to be disaggregated by population features
?@A to uncover patterns. trends. and information about subgroups of persons $ith
disabilities9
,edicated disability surveys can also gain more comprehensive information on
disability characteristics. such as prevalence. health conditions associated $ith
disability. and use of and need for services including rehabilitation9
!ecommendation %: Strengthen and support research on disability
Research is essential for increasing public understanding about disability issues.
informing disability policy and programmes. and efficiently allocating resources9
?The "orld Report on ,isabilityA recommends several areas for research on disability
including: the impact of environmental factors 7policies. physical environment.
attitudes8 on disability and ho$ to measure itC the -uality of life and $ell4being of
people $ith disabilitiesC ?@A $hat $orks in overcoming ?barriersA in different conte3tsC
?@A9
+9
?@A A critical mass of trained researchers on disability needs to be built9 Research
skills should be strengthened in a range of disciplines. including epidemiology.
disability studies. health and rehabilitation. ?@A education. economics. sociology. and
public policy9 'nternational learning and research opportunities. linking universities in
developing countries $ith those in high4income and middle4income countries. can
also be useful9
5%N)T%R)NG
@hile not always thought of as an implementation measure, monitoring too has a 1ey role.
Through monitoring, it is possible to see which implementation measures have wor1ed and
which have not. 5t helps to refine laws and policies and other implementation measures, and
ensure that budgets are used optimally. 5t also helps to uncover human rights breaches so
that remedies can be granted to victims and, it is hoped, further breaches prevented.
#aramount is the process of State parties reporting to the +ommittee on the !ights of
#ersons with ,isabilities. +ivil society and national human rights institutions can also
provide information to the +ommittee through what are called alternative reports. Module J
examines State reports and alternative reports in detail.
5n addition to monitoring at the international level, monitoring can also be national. )ccording to the
-+! (anual on Human Rights (onitoring,
?
Dhuman rights monitoringE is a broad term describing
the active collection, verification, analysis and use of information to assess and address human rights
concerns. Monitoring ta1es place over a protracted period of time. The term DmonitoringE also includes
the collection, verification and use of information to address human rights problems raised in relation
to laws, policies, programmes and budgets and other interventions.
Several aspects of this definition are worth highlighting:
. Monitoring is a process: from collection to verification to the use of information.
. 5nformation collection can relate to many situations: one7off situations, such as
incidents or events< or ongoing situations, such as service delivery in psychiatric
hospitals, schools, an inaccessible wor1place and so on.
. Monitoring is not Bust about situations, but also about laws, policies and budgets.
*iven that the ratification of a human rights treaty re2uires changes to laws and
policies, it is important that monitoring also includes the review of laws, policies and
strategies as well as budgets to identify the extent to which they reflect the norms
and standards in the treaty.
. Monitoring involves several actors. uman rights monitoring concerns both the
situation of rights and rights7holders, as well as the respect for duties and the
situation of duty7bearers. +onse2uently, monitoring should involve not only persons
with disabilities whose rights might be affected, but also *overnment actors 4staff at
ministries, local authorities and others6 so that: 4a6 the level of respect for duties is
understood< and 4b6 all sides of the story are examined and information is verified.
. Monitoring has a purpose. The information gathered through monitoring should be
used to improve the respect for rights and duties. 5f there has been a breach of a
right, the information should see1 to provide solutions and remedies for the victim
and help *overnment actors fulfil these rights in the future.
. Monitoring can occur at different stages. Monitoring generally starts with the
collection of primary information or information direct from the source. owever,
,
#rofessional Training Series No. J"!ev.$ 4United Nations publication, forthcoming6.
*0
monitoring can also occur through the use of secondary sources. =or example, the
+ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities underta1es monitoring on the
basis of State parties0 periodic reports and the alternative reports submitted by civil
society and national human rights institutions.
Monitoring focuses mainly on:
. 6aws 2oli*ies budgets 2rogra//es. The +onvention re2uires the review and,
generally, the reform of a range of laws, policies and strategies: for example,
ensuring that anti7discrimination laws protect against discrimination on the basis of
disability and that other laws, such as those on health, education or construction, do
not discriminate on the basis of disability. 5n addition, given that the +onvention
re2uires the appropriate allocation of resources, budgets can also be monitored. 5n
addition, programmes and strategies, such as national development strategies or
strategies related to humanitarian emergencies, have great potential to affect the
rights of persons with disabilities, depending on the extent to which they mainstream
disabilities. )ll of these may be monitored.
. )n*idents and events can lead to individual violations of human rights and it is
important that these should be monitored. Such data might come directly from
victims. ,ata might also come from media accounts and other sources, including
legal proceedings. This is a traditional focus of human rights monitoring.
. Situations and 2la*es. )t times, there are particular situations, such as service
provision, or places, such as institutions, which could give rise to human rights
problems. The level of accessibility of schools might be monitored to identify the
principal barriers to inclusive education. Surveys of employers might identify the
issues that need to be addressed to ensure inclusive employment and the provision
of reasonable accommodation in the wor1place. 8ven where allegations of individual
violations have not emerged 4events6, monitoring might uncover violations or help
prevent them.
)nyone can monitor the situation of the rights of persons with disabilities. owever, certain
actors have particular responsibilities:
States. )s noted above, the State has an obligation to report to the +ommittee on
the measures it has adopted to implement the +onvention.
N'R)s. Under article CC, N!5s have a role to promote, protect and monitor the
provisions of the +onvention. This function is discussed in greater detail in module ..
ere, it is important to underline that these institutions have to conform to the #aris
#rinciples, which means that they have to have competency to submit reports to the
*overnment, parliament and others on issues such as: conformity of laws to human
rights standards< any situation where a human rights violation has occurred< the
national human rights situation< its opinion on *overnment reactions to reports on
the human rights situation. National preventive mechanisms under the -ptional
#rotocol to the +onvention against Torture should consider including the rights of
persons with disabilities within the scope of their monitoring activities.
Civil so*iet1BDP%s. )ccording to article CC 4C6, civil society, and particularly persons
with disabilities and their representative organi9ations, shall be involved and
participate fully in monitoring the +onvention. This means that they should be
involved in the monitoring organi9ed, for instance, by the independent mechanism or
by the *overnment. 5n addition, civil society, particularly persons with disabilities and
their representative organi9ation, should, in its own capacity, monitor and defend the
rights of persons with disabilities.
%ther *ivil so*iet1 a*tors. )rticle CC 4C6 refers to civil society generally. +ivil society
organi9ations that are not ,#-s also have a role in monitoring. =or example, when
*1
monitoring the broader human rights situation, human rights N*-s should ensure
that they also monitor the rights of persons with disabilities. ) failure to do so could
result in the exclusion of persons with disabilities from the post7monitoring phase as
solutions and remedies are identified and implemented.
)ntergovern/ental organi<ations. Some intergovernmental organi9ations have a
monitoring role. This is particularly the case for stand7alone -+! field offices and
human rights components of peace missions. Several field presences, such as those
in Timor7Heste and Sierra Heone, are actively involved in monitoring aspects of the
+onvention. 5n addition, regional organi9ations, such as -ffice for ,emocratic
5nstitutions and uman !ights of the -rgani9ation for Security and +o7operation in
8urope, monitor elections and it is important to ensure that these activities also ta1e
into account the rights of persons with disabilities.
)s set out in article C$ on data collection and statistics, by collecting appropriate information,
including statistical and research data, States are enabled to formulate and implement
policies to give effect to the +onvention. The +onvention0s implementation can be stepped
up through evidence7based policy implementation, based on domestic monitoring and
reporting, as well as on reports to the +ommittee and the +ommittee0s concluding
observations.
*2
5%D&6( C
D)SCR)5)N#T)%N %N T'( $#S)S %? D)S#$)6)TY
)ntrodu*tion
,iscrimination refers to the act of treating someone or something differently and is not
necessarily negative. To say that someone is discriminating can mean that the person has
good taste or Budgement. owever, discrimination can also mean that someone treats
certain people unfairly because of that person0s characteristics. 5t is this second meaning of
discrimination which concerns human rights law.
The Universal ,eclaration of uman !ights recogni9es that: Everyone is entitled to all the
rights and freedoms set forth in this ,eclaration. $ithout distinction of any kind. such as
race. colour. se3. language. religion. political or other opinion. national or social origin.
property. birth or other status9 This simple statement has been repeated in national laws and
constitutions and regional and United Nations treaties. Fut what does it mean in practiceA
,iscrimination can occur in many forms: very open, laid down in law or hidden. 5t is often the
result of preBudices, economic and social disparities, and religious and cultural
misconceptions. 5f we are to combat discrimination, we have to combat these negative
attitudes.
Dis*ri/ination on the basis of disabilit1 today affects a large portion of the world0s
population. 5t is one of the main problems persons with, or associated with, disabilities face.
5t manifests itself in different forms and can have disastrous effects on their lives and, by
extension, on the rest of society. )ccording to the +ommittee on 8conomic, Social and
+ultural !ights, in its general comment No. / 4$%%K6:
ROS dis*ri/ination against 2ersons with disabilities RhasS a long history and
Rta1esS various forms. They range from invidious discrimination, such as the denial of
educational opportunities, to more DsubtleE forms of discrimination such as
segregation and isolation achieved through the imposition of physical and social
barriers. ROS Through neglect, ignorance, preBudice and false assumptions, as well as
through exclusion, distinction or separation, persons with disabilities have very often
been prevented from exercising their economic, social or cultural rights on an e2ual
basis with persons without disabilities. The effe*ts of disabilit14based
dis*ri/ination have been 2arti*ularl1 severe in the fields of edu*ation
e/2lo1/ent housing trans2ort *ultural life and a**ess to 2ubli* 2la*es and
servi*es. 4emphasis added6
@hile the general comment focused specifically on economic, social and cultural rights, the
same is true for civil and political rights. =or example, in many countries, some persons with
disabilities are still denied the right to vote as well as legal capacity to marry or enter into
contracts to buy or sell property.
5t is difficult to discuss discrimination without also considering the concept of e2uality. 5n
human rights law, non7discrimination and e2uality are really two sides of the same coin. Fy
combating discrimination, we hope to combat the underlying factors in society that lead to
ine2uality. )nd if deal with the factors leading to ine2uality, we hope to prevent
discrimination.
*(
owever, the relationship between non7discrimination and e2uality raises confusion over
what is meant by De2ualityE. @hen we refer to the term De2ualityE, we often thin1 of things
that are the same, identical or e2uivalent. owever, when we tal1 about e2uality in the
context of human rights, we are not necessarily saying that all people are identical or the
same. !ather, we are saying that everyone has the same rights. 5n order to ensure that
everyone has the same rights, two people might at times have to be treated differently
because of their inherent difference 4such as different sex, different linguistic heritage,
different minority status or different impairments6.
Treating two people differently in this way can lead to confusion and also to claims of
discrimination. Fut this is not discrimination. 5t is a merely an ac1nowledgement that people
are different but that they have the same rights< to ma1e e2uality a reality, different
strategies might be needed for different people.
?or/s of 2rohibited dis*ri/ination
There are a range of concepts that underlie non7discrimination law which are important to
understand.
,e Bure and de facto discrimination
,e /ure discrimination 7discrimination in la$8
uman rights law prohibits discrimination in law. 5n some countries, electoral legislation sets
out that persons with mental disabilities placed under guardianship are not allowed to vote.
Under international human rights law, this is an example of discrimination on the basis of
disability. 5t is a distinction, in law, made on the basis of mental disability that has the
purpose as well as the effect of nullifying the recognition of the right to vote for some
persons with disabilities.
,e facto discrimination 7discrimination in practice8
#rotection against discrimination goes beyond only prohibiting discrimination in laws and
includes protection from discrimination in practice. =or example, it protects against the
actions of employers who ma1e decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the
abilities or performance of staff with disabilities. )n employer who refuses to promote a
person with a disability because of a belief that the disability will prevent the person from
fulfilling the duties of the post without any evidence that this is in fact the case is, on the face
of it, discriminating de facto. 5t is a distinction on the basis of disability which has the purpose
and effect of impairing the right to wor1 4including career advancement6.
,irect and indirect discrimination
,irect discrimination
,irect discrimination occurs when an individual is treated less favourably than another
person in a similar situation for a reason related to disability. Thus, a refusal to accept a
student with a disability in the general education system amounts to direct discrimination.
5magine the following scenario: a company has a policy of not hiring anyone with a history of
bac1 problems irrespective of the duties of a position. The policy unlawfully discriminates
against people with a disability who can meet the inherent re2uirements of the Bob. They are
being treated less fairly than other Bob applicants on the basis of a disability.
*%
'ndirect discrimination
5ndirect discrimination refers to laws, policies or practices which appear neutral, but fail to
ta1e into account the particular circumstances of persons with disabilities3which therefore
causes direct harm or has a disproportionate impact on the exercise of their rights. =or
example, an inflexible re2uirement in the wor1place that all employees have lunch at the
same time might constitute discrimination against a person with a disability who has to ta1e
medication at a certain time or ta1e periodic rests during the day. @hile the re2uirement, on
the face of it, applies to all staff and does not refer to persons with disabilities, its effect is
discriminatory. +ombating indirect discrimination helps get to the underlying biases within
society that cause discrimination and exclusion in the first place. 5t is important to note that
indirect discrimination can sometimes be hard to prove.
Multiple forms of discrimination
The +onvention0s preamble recalls the Ddifficult conditions faced by persons with disabilities
who are subBect to multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination on the basis of race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic, indigenous or
social origin, property, birth, age or other statusE. =or example, a woman with disabilities
might experience discrimination on the basis of sex as well as disability.
5magine an internally displaced woman fleeing a war. She is very poor, belongs to an ethnic
minority and has a physical disability. 5n many countries affected by conflicts and
humanitarian crises this scenario is familiar. The woman could be subBect to multiple forms
of discrimination owing to her sex and social conditions as well as her disability. @omen are
often vulnerable to sexual violence during conflict. #ersons with disabilities are also often
subBect to sexual violence because they are hidden or ignored and might face greater
challenges in communicating. )s a result, women with disabilities might face multiple ris1s of
sexual violence during conflict, particularly if preparedness strategies fail to ta1e them into
account.
Systemic discrimination
Unfortunately, much discrimination is systemic. The charity and medical approaches to
disability are still very entrenched in all societies and at all levels. Systemic discrimination
ta1es time to change. #artly as a means to tac1le systemic discrimination, article ? of the
+onvention re2uires States to raise awareness about persons with disabilities and to foster
respect for their rights and dignity.
,iscrimination by association
#ersons without disabilities DassociatedE with a person with disabilities can also be victims of
discrimination on the basis of disability. +onsider the case of a woman who was dismissed
from her Bob when her employer discovered that she had a hearing7impaired son. The
employer assumed that she would need time off wor1 to loo1 after him. 8ven though she
does not have a disability herself, she suffers discrimination on the basis of her son0s
disability. 5n other words, there was a distinction on the basis of disability which had the
effect of nullifying the woman0s right to wor1.
arassment
arassment occurs when an individual is subBected to comments, ridicule or any other
demeaning conduct on the basis of disability. Hegislation should protect against harassment.
)rticle 'J 4b6 of the +onvention refers expressly to protection against harassment related to
*)
wor1 and employment. =or example, a supervisor who consistently ma1es someone with a
disability do menial tas1s at wor1 while others with the same 2ualifications without a
disability have more complicated and interesting tas1s could be subBecting the staff member
with a disability to harassment.
;ustified differential treatment
@hile all discrimination is prohibited, in some cases, it is permissible to treat two people
differently on the basis of disability. +onsider the following case: a man who has severe bac1
pain and is unable to bend is reBected for a Bob as a carpet fitter as he cannot carry out the
essential re2uirement of the Bob, which is to fit carpets.
Not every differentiation of treatment constitutes discrimination. The criteria for assessing
/ustified differential treatment are found in other areas of human rights law:
4a6 The criteria for such differentiation must be reasonable and ob/ective< and
4b6 The aim of the differential treatment must be to achieve a legitimate purpose, in other
words, a purpose that is consistent with human rights principles.
5f a person cannot perform a Bob and no reasonable accommodation is possible, then
differential treatment is Bustifiable.
The definition of dis*ri/ination in the Convention
The +onvention defines discrimination in article ' as follows:
%,iscrimination on the basis of disability& means any distinction. e3clusion or
restriction on the basis of disability $hich has the purpose or effect of impairing or
nullifying the recognition. en/oyment or e3ercise. on an e-ual basis $ith others. of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political. economic. social. cultural.
civil or any other field9 't includes all forms of discrimination. including denial of
reasonable accommodation9
To help understand this definition, it is important to brea1 it down.
,istinction, exclusion or restriction
,iscrimination means any distinction, as well as e3clusion or restriction made on the basis of
disability. +onse2uently, the acts that constitute discrimination can be 2uite varied.
) DdistinctionE might be an explicit differentiation between two people on the basis of
disability. =or example, if children with certain intellectual impairments are subBect to
forced sterili9ation while other children are not, this is a discriminatory distinction.
)n DexclusionE refers to a situation where a person, on the basis of disability, cannot
enter a particular space or participate in a particular activity. ) policy that does not
allow a child with a disability to enter mainstream education is an exclusion which
could amount to discrimination.
) DrestrictionE refers to a limitation on the right of people to participate in certain
aspects of civil, cultural, economic, political or social life. =or example, a law stating
that persons with intellectual disabilities cannot, prima facie, vote in national elections
could amount to a discriminatory restriction.
*+
-n the basis of disability
The +onvention refers to Ddiscrimination on the basis of disabilityE. This goes further than
Ddiscrimination against persons with disabilitiesE as the focus is not only on protecting
persons with disabilities but on combating 4and ultimately eliminating6 discrimination itself,
whether against persons with disabilities or anyone else. +onse2uently, discrimination on
the basis of disability is not targeting only persons with disabilities but also people who, for
different reasons, are associated with persons with disabilities 4discrimination by
association6.
This mirrors the +onvention0s social"human rights approach to disability. !ather than
Dprotecting persons with disabilitiesE, which could be a charity approach in certain situations,
the +onvention see1s to combat discrimination, i.e., the negative attitudes and environment
that can put persons with disabilities in a vulnerable or marginali9ed situation. This is in order
to get to the heart of the problem. 5f someone suffers discrimination on the basis of a
perceived disability, this is evidence that preBudice exists and human rights law see1s to
tac1le these negative attitudes. 5n doing so, we can imagine a world without discrimination.
#urpose or effect
)rticle ' clarifies that such distinctions, exclusions or restrictions are violations if they have:
4a6 The purpose 4discriminatory intention6< or
4b6 The effect 4the obBective outcome, $hether this $as the intention or not6,
of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enBoyment or exercise of all rights for"by persons
with disabilities.
There does not need to be an intention to discriminate for discrimination to occur. The focus
is on the experience of the person suffering the discrimination. Thoughtlessness and neglect
can have the same or an even worse discriminatory effect than an intended discriminatory
act.
The reference to purpose and effect highlights the fact that the +onvention prohibits both
direct and indirect discrimination. @hile some acts lead directly to discrimination3for
example, restricting the right to vote for persons with intellectual disabilities3much
discrimination occurs by treating two persons in different situations in the same way. So
building a staircase at the entrance of a hospital is treating persons with and without
disabilities in the same way, but the result is discriminatory, as a person in a wheelchair
cannot enter the hospital while a person who can wal1 is able to enter. @hile on the surface
there does not appear to have been any discrimination 4the hospital is open to all6 the effect
can be discriminatory. The +onvention prevents this indirect discrimination as well.
!ecognition, enBoyment or exercise
#rotection from discrimination extends not only to the recognition of the rights of persons
with disabilities, for example, in laws, but also the enBoyment of their rights 4such as the
benefit of freedoms without hindrance, e.g., freedom from abuse or torture6 and their
exercise 4such as the capacity to ta1e steps to attain a right, e.g., entering a school and
getting an education or deciding to refuse certain medications6. This recalls the prohibition in
other areas of human rights law of both de Bure 4discrimination in laws and policies6 as well
as de facto discrimination 4discrimination in practice6.
**
8nBoyment of human rights Don an e2ual basis with othersE
The +onvention does not see1 to create new rights for persons with disabilities. 5nstead, it
see1s to combat discrimination, i.e., those barriers and attitudes that prevent persons with
disabilities from enBoying their rights. The ultimate aim is that everyone, whether with or
without disabilities, can enBoy the same human rights.
)ll human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or
any other field
The +onvention combats discrimination in relation to all human rights, whether civil, cultural,
economic, political or social, and in any field. 5n the past and still today, some people and
even States have tended to prioriti9e some rights over others. =or example, during the cold
war, States with a mar1et economy often put greater emphasis on civil and political rights,
while States with a centrally planned economy tended to focus on economic, social and
cultural rights. 5n the context of disability, there has traditionally been a greater focus on
protecting economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights have been given
less attention. The +onvention clearly states that the protection against discrimination covers
all rights in all fields.
,enial of reasonable accommodation
The definition recogni9es denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination.
To promote e2uality and eliminate discrimination, State parties must ta1e all appropriate
steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided.
D!easonable accommodationE means, for example, ma1ing adaptations to the organi9ation
of a wor1 environment, an educational establishment, a health7care facility or transport
service so as to remove the barriers that prevent an individual with a disability from
participating in an activity or receiving services on an e2ual basis with others. )t wor1, this
might involve physical changes to premises, ac2uiring or modifying e2uipment, providing a
reader or interpreter, giving appropriate training or supervision, adapting testing or
assessment procedures, altering standard wor1ing hours or allocating some of the duties of
a position to another person.
@hile the +onvention re2uires the particular needs of an individual with a disability to be
accommodated, it refers to reasonable accommodation. 5f the accommodation imposes a
disproportionate or undue burden on the person or entity expected to provide it, then failure
to do so would not constitute discrimination.
5n a number of countries, legislation sets out the factors that should be ta1en into account
when assessing whether the accommodation re2uested amounts to a disproportionate
burden. These include:
The practicability of the changes re2uired<
The cost<
The nature, si9e and resources of the entity expected to provide it<
The availability of other financial support<
-ccupational health and safety implications< and
The impact on the entity0s operations.
Reasonable a**o//odation is a /odifi*ation /ade in favour of and at the re7uest of
an individual. Thus, an employee who has a car accident and re2uires certain modifications
to continue wor1ing can re2uest reasonable accommodation of the employer. This is
*,
different from general accessibility measures under article D of the +onvention which are not
necessarily targeted at individuals 4although individuals obviously benefit6 but at the
community at large. @hile States must achieve general accessibility over time, an individual
can re2uest reasonable accommodation immediately and lodge a complaint with a tribunal if
it is not made.
The +onvention imposes the burden to ensure reasonable accommodation on States.
owever, given that much of it is needed in the private sector, States should oblige the
private sector, through legislation, to provide reasonable accommodation.
5anifestations of dis*ri/ination
#ersons with disabilities have long faced different forms of discrimination, but the hope is
that the adoption of the +onvention will reduce this discrimination worldwide.
#ersons with disabilities have been considered abnormal beings, manifestations of evil or
unnatural curiosities. They have been executed, segregated or forced to undergo medical
experiments. They have been subBected to ridicule and cruel amusement and seen as bad
omens. 5n many cases, they have been considered inferior beings e2ual only in the eyes of
*od and as such deserving sympathy and pity.
,iscrimination evolves but does not necessarily decrease. 5n '((., on the adoption of the
+onvention, the United Nations Secretary7*eneral Qofi )nnan stated:
VToo often, those living with disabilities have been seen as obBects of embarrassment,
and at best, of condescending pity and charity. O -n paper, they have enBoyed the
same rights as others< in real life, they have often been relegated to the margins and
denied the opportunities that others ta1e for granted.V
+onsider some examples:
The annihilation of the %unfit&: discrimination and the right to life. -ne of the most serious
forms of discrimination on the basis of disability was perpetrated in the twentieth century
during the Na9i regime. 5t targeted persons with mental and physical disabilities, li1e
other groups considered inferior, and subBected them to annihilation, experimentation,
sterili9ation and other brutalities. Sterili9ation and euthanasia programmes were carried
out against the mentally or physically DunfitE. 5ndividual cases were presented in front of
public health officers, who decided whether or not to carry out forced sterili9ation. The
5nterior Ministry also re2uired doctors and midwives to report all cases of newborns with
severe disabilities. +hildren under the age of three with illnesses or disabilities such as
,own0s syndrome, hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy or Dsuspected idiocyE among others
were targeted. )round '/(,((( disabled people were 1illed and some K/(,((( sterili9ed
during this period.
-ther States, too, adopted legislation and policies authori9ing sterili9ation. Thousands of
persons with disabilities were sterili9ed by force. Sterili9ation practices were based on
eugenic theories, very popular at the beginning of the twentieth century, which promoted
race 2uality control, reproduction of selected people and traits, and repression of
undesired groups.
*9
,enial of legal capacity: discrimination and e-ual recognition before the la$9 Hegal
systems around the world have considered disability as a lawful ground for not
recogni9ing persons with intellectual, mental or sensory disabilities as persons before the
law3and many still do. 5n practice this denies these persons a wide range of human
rights such as the capacity to ma1e decisions, sign contracts, vote, get married, inherit
property, administer personal goods, defend rights in court or choose medical
treatments.
*uardians sometimes fail to act in the interest of the persons with disabilities they are
representing. They may even abuse their positions of authority and violate the rights of
others. @hen legal capacity is lac1ing, forced medical interventions 4drugs, surgery, and
sterili9ation6 and medical experiments can be carried out without free and informed
consent. @omen and girls with intellectual disabilities, for example, are often subBected
to forced sterili9ation.
,eprivation of liberty on the basis of disability. ,isability has been considered as a lawful
ground to deprive persons with disabilities of their liberty. Fy declaring that they may be
dangerous to themselves or others or be in need of care, the State can commit them,
sometimes for their entire lives. Haws and policies have been enacted on the assumption
that persons with disabilities are better off in institutions. 5n other cases persons with
disabilities are segregated from society and 1ept at home.
,isability and gender: multiple forms of discrimination9 Men and women have different
experiences of disability< women with disabilities can be discriminated against on two
grounds: sex and disability. =or instance, in rural areas women and girls with disabilities
sometimes have very limited access to education at any level and few opportunities to
earn a living. Schools, roads and transport are often inaccessible. #arents might
therefore not be able to send children with disabilities to school. 5n addition, these
barriers might be exacerbated by gender7based discrimination in communities where
attitudes already discourage girls from going to school. The result can be high illiteracy
among girls with disabilities and a missed childhood, since they have no interaction with
other children in an educational environment.
,iscrimination and the right to education9 +hildren with disabilities have been excluded
from education and may even be considered uneducable. Some have argued that
people with certain disabilities 4mental, learning and even physical6 cannot be educated
in mainstream schools. -ften these decisions are ta1en without investing in experts or
teachers able to support or ensure peer learning between children with and without
disabilities. The result is that children with disabilities are put in special schools, where
expectations for excellence are unsatisfactory. *iven the preBudice that children with
disabilities supposedly obstruct the education of other children, parents of children with
disabilities may decide to put their children in special schools or 1eep them at home. 5f
discrimination is pervasive, ta1ing decisions that go against the overall discriminatory
mentality can be seen as ris1y and ultimately detrimental to the child with disabilities.
Get, giving in only reinforces stigma and discrimination.
,0
Specific cultural settings and stigma: discrimination and the right to cultural life. 5n some
cultural settings, disability can be perceived as a punishment from *od, the result of
witchcraft or as a shameful failure on the part of the family. This can entail social
disapproval, marginali9ation and even frustration leading to domestic violence. #ersons
with disabilities, including children, may decide to leave their communities and go to
urban areas to gain some independence. owever, they may end up begging or being
exploited in other ways because they are illiterate or have few Bob opportunities. Those
who cannot move freely may be hidden by their family members or live in the community
in very precarious conditions.
5n some rural villages in aiti, parents giving birth to a child with mental or physical
disabilities feel that they have been punished for a sin they committed. The implications
are grave: the father may impregnate other women to show he was not responsible for
the disability. The child may be 1ept at home, hidden from the rest of the community.
5n +ambodia many children and adults have lost limbs in landmine explosions, mainly in
rural areas. aving a disability is considered socially unfortunate and often forces
persons to live on the margins of society. 8ven today persons with disabilities may be
ignored by vendors in the mar1etplace and have to as1 the assistance of someone else
to get served.
'naccessibility: discrimination and freedom of movement!independent living. #hysical,
informational and technological barriers prevent persons with disabilities from fully
participating in society on an e2ual basis with others. 5naccessibility also relates to
negative attitudes in society that perpetuate images of persons with disabilities as being
slow, less intelligent or unable to ma1e decisions, for example. ) 1ey element to ensure
e2ual rights for persons with disabilities is improving the accessibility of the built
environment, information and communications technology, transport and other facilities,
goods and services open to the public.
6inking non4dis*ri/ination with e7ualit1@ s2e*ifi* /easures
+ombating discrimination re2uires more than merely prohibiting it. 5t also re2uires getting to
the heart of indirect discrimination > changing the underlying biases in society that lead to
discrimination in the first place > by promoting e2uality. =or this reason, specific measures
are often needed to help achieve e2uality for persons facing discrimination, including
persons with disabilities. Specific measures in favour of a person with a disability are not
considered discriminatory< they amount to Bustified differential treatment. This is recogni9ed
in the +onvention. )rticle / 4K6 states:
Specific measures $hich are necessary to accelerate or achieve de facto e-uality of
persons $ith disabilities shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of the
present +onvention9
The +onvention therefore recogni9es that to ensure de facto e2uality with others, it may
sometimes be necessary to adopt measures that are specific to persons with disabilities.
Such measures can be permanent3for example, building accessible car par1s in urban
areas for vehicles carrying persons with disabilities3or temporary3such as employment
2uotas for wor1ers with disabilities. Foth are permissible under the +onvention and do not
constitute discrimination as defined in its article '.
)t times, specific measures in favour of a particular individual or group might be resented by
others, who see them as being unfair or even discriminatory. Get such measures are
,1
permissible only to the extent that they redress the imbalance in the enBoyment of human
rights between persons with and without disabilities. -nce e2uality between them is
achieved, specific measures are no longer necessary.
The formula provided in article / must be read in conBunction with the specific non7
discrimination and e2uality measures that are attached to the broad range of rights
contained in the +onvention, such as in matters of marriage, family, parenthood and
relationships 4art. 'C6, education 4art. 'K6, health 4art. '/6, employment 4art. 'J6, standard of
living and social protection 4art. '?6, and participation in public and political life 4art. '%6.
Ta1e the right to wor1 in article 'J. State parties to the +onvention have committed to
employing persons with disabilities in the public sector and to promoting their employment in
the private sector, including through affirmative action programmes. These are specific
measures that see1 to redress the under7employment of persons with disabilities in an area
where the State has direct influence, namely its employment policies. Fy actively see1ing to
employ persons with disabilities, the State can promote e2ual enBoyment of the right to wor1.
Fy re2uiring or encouraging the private sector to introduce affirmative action programmes,
the State can influence employment indirectly.
-ne type of affirmative action programme is the introduction of 2uotas3e.g., a re2uirement
that / per cent of employees have a disability and the imposition of a fine on the employer
who does not respect the 2uota. The +onvention does not re2uire 2uotas. Muotas have
advantages and disadvantages. They might lead to to1enism, with employers recruiting any
person with a disability at any level simply to meet the 2uota or paying the fine to avoid the
measure all together. -n the other hand, 2uotas might be a way to get persons with
disabilities into the wor1place, which in turn can lead to economic empowerment and the
enBoyment of other rights. *iven that the +onvention refers to affirmative action programmes
without specifying what they are, it is advisable to examine what programmes are most li1ely
to lead to sustainable improvements for persons with disabilities and their right to wor1. 5n
some cases 2uotas might wor1, in others not.
The +ommittee on the 8limination of ,iscrimination against @omen, in its general comment
No. '/ 4'((K6 on temporary special measures 4art. K 4$66, identified some measures which
could be relevant to identifying specific measures in favour of persons with disabilities.
These include:
-utreach and support programmes
)llocation and"or reallocation of resources
#referential treatment
Targeted recruitment, iring and promotion measures
Numerical goals connected with time frames
Muota systems.
-ho is res2onsible.
@hen discrimination on the basis of disability occursA @ho is actually perpetrating itA )nd
who is responsibleA
ere are some examples:
,2
) passenger changes compartment because she feels uncomfortable sitting close to
a passenger with ,own0s syndrome<
) family 1eeps a small child with autism at home because there are no inclusive
education opportunities at the local school<
) private ban1 denies a loan to a person who has a mental impairment<
)n employee with cerebral palsy re2uests a change of position in a large corporation
and the employer refuses to accommodate her without giving reasons<
) person with a physical disability is abused at home and reports it to the police, but
the police refuse to ta1e action<
) United Nations humanitarian preparedness plan fails to mention persons with
disabilities in a disaster7prone country<
) person with a visual impairment cannot apply for a position of human rights officer
because the vacancy re2uires a driving licence.
+onsidering the examples above, who, if anyone, is responsibleA The passenger, the family,
the ban1, management, the human resources sectionA @hen it comes to discrimination,
different layers of responsibility emerge, but the State is the primary duty bearer.
States
Foth States and regional integration organi9ations, which are made up of sovereign States,
can sign up to the +onvention. The +onvention lays down specific obligations on State
parties to protect, promote and ensure the rights of persons with disabilities.
Moreover, under article C', States commit to underta1ing appropriate and effective
measures of international cooperation in support of national efforts for the reali9ation of the
+onvention. @hile States have primary responsibility for implementing the rights of persons
with disabilities in their Burisdiction, they also have to cooperate with other States. This
highlights their extraterritorial responsibilities to promote, protect and ensure the rights of
persons with disabilities.
5nternational and regional organi9ations
This, in turn, raises the 2uestion of the responsibility of international and regional
organi9ations, such as the United Nations, the @orld Fan1, the +ouncil of 8urope and so on.
)rticle C' refers to them as partners in international cooperation. Similarly, the speciali9ed
agencies and other United Nations organs are entitled to be represented before the
+ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities. This clearly shows that they have a
role in international cooperation to promote the +onvention. owever, international
organi9ations might themselves discriminate. @hile their member States are ultimately
responsible for avoiding such discrimination, these organi9ations also have a role to play to
support the +onvention, even if this role is not clearly defined.
#rivate enterprises
!ights can be violated through the direct action or omission by State parties, including their
national and local institutions or agencies. owever, while States are the main duty bearers
under the +onvention, those implementing many of its provisions are not State actors but
,(
private enterprises. The private sector plays a very important role in the delivery of relevant
services 4e.g., education, sign translation, mobile telephones with voice7over systems6.
)ccording to article K, State parties must ensure that the private sector respects the rights of
persons with disabilities. +onse2uently, States must ensure that appropriate mechanisms
are in place to monitor the private sector and that State policies related to, for instance,
education, employment and health integrate the principle of non7discrimination and are
adopted by private providers.
Service providers
The +onvention also refers to specific services such as support for decision7ma1ing 4art. $'6,
personal assistance for independent living 4art. $%6, teachers 4art. 'K6, health professionals
4art. '/6. Service providers have an important role in providing the conditions needed by
persons with disabilities to fully enBoy their human rights. )t the same time, service providers
themselves might discriminate against persons with disabilities3intentionally or otherwise.
Thus, the State must also ta1e steps to ensure that service providers are aware of and
support the +onvention, for example, by ta1ing appropriate measures to employ teachers,
including teachers with disabilities, who are 2ualified in sign language and"or Fraille and to
train professionals and staff who wor1 at all levels of education.
5ndividuals and families
)rticle K also re2uires States to ta1e steps to eliminate discrimination by any person. This
includes ensuring ade2uate penalties and other Budicial measures to protect against
discrimination. 5t also re2uires DraisRingS awareness throughout society, including at the
family level, regarding persons with disabilities, and to foster respect for the rights and
dignity of persons with disabilitiesE, as set out in article ?.
-hat *an these a*tors do to *o/bat dis*ri/ination.
Module K sets out the range of measures that assist in the implementation of the
+onvention: developing laws and policies< ensuring allocation of ade2uate resources<
providing inclusive services< raising awareness and training professionals and others<
underta1ing research and development< providing remedies< and building institutions. @hen
we consider the various examples outlined in the previous section, it is possible to identify
some of the actions these actors can ta1e to combat discrimination.
A passenger changes compartment because she feels uncomfortable sitting close to
a passenger $ith ,o$n<s syndrome9 @hile the negative attitude of this woman is
potentially creating barriers to the participation of the person with ,own0s syndrome,
this is not strictly spea1ing discrimination. There has been a distinction on the basis
of disability, but this has not impaired the enBoyment of any right of the passenger
with ,own0s syndrome. owever, the State might consider raising awareness to
promote more inclusive societies and to combat fear of persons who are different<
A family keeps a small child $ith autism at home because there are no inclusive
education opportunities at the local school9 The failure to provide inclusive education
opportunities has the effect of nullifying the right to education of the child. The State
has a duty to ensure inclusive education services are available in the area and also
to raise awareness about inclusion. The State should also ensure that laws and
policies reflect principles of inclusive education. )t the same time, the school board
and teachers might have responsibilities to ensure that inclusive education is
,%
effective and that parents are aware that such services are in place 4if indeed they
are6<
A private bank denies a loan to a person $ho has a mental impairment9 @hether
there has been discrimination here is open to 2uestion. 5n reality, the ban1 may not
specify that the refusal is based on disability, but put forward another excuse to
Bustify the refusal. Moreover, there is no human right to a ban1 loan. owever, the
State has a duty to legislate to ensure that private ban1s do not discriminate on the
basis of disability. 5t should also provide support services so that the person can
exercise his or her legal capacity. 5n such cases, the provision of support might be
sufficient to prevent such a situation in the first place, as it would underscore the
ability of the person to exercise legal capacity and repay the loan<
An employee $ith cerebral palsy re-uests a change of position in a large corporation
and the employer refuses to accommodate her $ithout giving reasons9 #otentially,
there has been a denial of reasonable accommodation that would amount to
discrimination. The State has a duty to legislate to ensure that the private sector does
not deny reasonable accommodation to the person with a disability. The employer
must ensure that accommodation is provided unless it is unreasonable 4a undue
burden6<
A person $ith a physical disability is abused at home and reports it to the police. but
the police refuse to take action9 There has been an exclusion on the basis of
disability by the police which impairs the right to be free from violence and abuse.
The State has a duty to pass laws re2uiring the police to protect persons with
disabilities from violence and abuse and to raise awareness and train the police so
that persons with disabilities can access Bustice<
A )nited *ations humanitarian preparedness plan fails to mention persons $ith
disabilities in a disaster4prone country9 This exclusion could impair or nullify the
exercise of a range of human rights in the event of a disaster and has already
impaired the right to ta1e part in the conduct of public affairs. States, acting
internationally, underta1e to ensure that international cooperation is accessible to
and inclusive of persons with disabilities. This should include the development of
policies that re2uire the United Nations to respect the rights of persons with
disabilities through international cooperation programmes<
A person $ith a visual impairment cannot apply for a position of human rights officer
because the vacancy re-uires a driving licence9 This could amount to Bustifiable
differential treatment if driving is a 1ey element of the Bob and a driver0s licence is
therefore necessary. 5t is reasonable treatment based on obBective criteria 4Bob
re2uirements applied to all applicants6 which see1s to respect the right to wor1 of all
applicants.
'n all these cases. it is also important to think not only $hat the State should do but $hat the
individual concerned should do9 =or example, the individual might see1 a remedy through
courts, national human rights institutions or informal conflict resolution systems, or might
see1 help from a non7governmental organi9ation or lobby the *overnment or others directly
to ta1e action 4writing letters to local parliamentarians for example6.
Disabilit1 as 2rohibited grounds of dis*ri/ination in other hu/an rights treaties
,)
The Universal ,eclaration on uman !ights, the 5nternational +ovenant on 8conomic,
Social and +ultural !ights and the 5nternational +ovenant on #olitical and +ivil !ights, all
protect individuals from discrimination. ,iscrimination on the basis of disability is covered in
their articles ' under Dother statusE:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this ,eclaration.
$ithout distinction of any kind. such as race. colour. se3. language. religion. political
or other opinion. national or social origin. property. birth or other status 4Universal
,eclaration6
The States Parties to the present +ovenant undertake to guarantee that the rights
enunciated in the present +ovenant $ill be e3ercised $ithout discrimination of any
kind as to race. colour. se3. language. religion. political or other opinion. national or
social origin. property. birth or other status 45nternational +ovenant on 8conomic,
Social and +ultural !ights6
The 5nternational +onvention on the 8limination of )ll =orms of !acial ,iscrimination, the
+onvention on the 8limination of )ll =orms of ,iscrimination against @omen, the
+onvention on the !ights of the +hild, the 5nternational +onvention on the #rotection of the
!ights of )ll Migrant @or1ers and Members of Their =amilies also set out States0 obligations
to combat and eliminate discrimination. -f these, only the +onvention on the !ights of the
+hild explicitly mentions DdisabilityE among the prohibited grounds of discrimination:
States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present +onvention
to each child $ithin their /urisdiction $ithout discrimination of any kind. irrespective of
the childEs or his or her parentEs or legal guardianEs race. colour. se3. language.
religion. political or other opinion. national. ethnic or social origin. property.
disability. birth or other status9 4art. '6
The +ommittee on 8conomic, Social and +ultural !ights, in its general comment No. '(
4'((%6, explained that Dother statusE covered among other things:
Disabilit1
)ge
Nationality
Marital and family status
Sexual orientation and gender identity
ealth status
#lace of residency
8conomic and social status
5ts general comment No. / 4$%%K6 provides a definition of discrimination against persons with
disabilities. The +ommittee against Torture includes Dmental or other disabilityE among the
ground for discrimination in its general comment No. ' 4'((J6. The +ommittee on the
8limination of ,iscrimination against @omen, in its general recommendation No. $? 4$%%$6,
points out the problem of Idouble discrimination0 affecting women with disabilities. 5n the
preamble to the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities it is recogni9ed that
Dchildren with disabilities should have full enBoyment of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms on an e2ual basis with other childrenE and recalled that Dobligations to that end
underta1en by States #arties to the +onvention on the !ights of the +hildE.
The 5nternational Habour -rgani9ation0s +onvention No. $/% 4$%?C6 concerning Nocational
!ehabilitation and 8mployment 4,isabled #ersons6 addresses e2ual opportunity, e2ual
treatment and non7discrimination. The United Nations 8ducational, Scientific and +ultural
-rgani9ation0s +onvention against ,iscrimination in 8ducation also deserves attention,
,+
particularly if complemented with the principles of inclusive education adopted at the $%%K
@orld +onference on Special Needs 8ducation: )ccess and Muality.
Some relevant regional instruments are the 5nter7)merican +onvention on the 8limination of
)ll =orms of ,iscrimination against #ersons with ,isabilities of the -rgani9ation of )merican
States, the +ouncil of 8urope0s +onvention on the !ecognition of Mualifications concerning
igher 8ducation in the 8uropean !egion and its )ction #lan to promote the rights and full
participation of people with disabilities in society: improving the 2uality of life of people with
disabilities in 8urope 4'((.>'($/6.
The +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities is a new tool to ma1e the fight
against discrimination on the basis of disability more informed and determined. 5f a specific
State has not yet ratified the treaty, it still has obligations to prohibit discrimination against
persons with disabilities under other human rights treaties that it has ratified.
,*
5%D&6( D
N#T)%N#6 )5P6(5(NT#T)%N #ND 5%N)T%R)NG ?R#5(-%R8S
National i/2le/entation and /onitoring /e*hanis/s
The +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities provides for the establishment of
national mechanisms and institutions for the implementation and monitoring of the
+onvention both at the international and at the national level.
National i/2le/entation and /onitoring /e*hanis/s, the focus of this module are set
out in article CC of the +onvention. These are:
?o*al 2oints@ )rticle CC, paragraph $, introduces domestic implementation through
the designation of a focal point or focal points within the *overnment. The
+onvention does not specify who could act as focal point 4a ministry, a department in
a ministry, a single person and so on6. )t the very least, having a focal point means
that the +onvention should not remain only in the ministry of foreign affairs, as an
international issue, but should have a dedicated entity focused on national
implementation.
Coordination /e*hanis/@ The same paragraph re2uires States to give due
consideration to the establishment or designation of a coordination mechanism within
the *overnment to facilitate action related to the implementation of the +onvention.
)lthough optional, such a coordination mechanism could be beneficial. Traditionally,
disability issues have been dealt with by one ministry, such as the ministry of health
or of social affairs. The ris1 has been that the education of children with disabilities
was sometimes dealt with by the ministry of social affairs rather than that of
education. Such an arrangement tends to exacerbate exclusion and promote
segregation. The +onvention spans all rights and, therefore, a range of ministries
should have responsibilities such as the ministry of the interior, of Bustice, of
education, of labour and so on. ) coordination mechanism can help ensure that the
+onvention does not remain stuc1 in one ministry but that responsibilities are shared.
)nde2endent i/2le/entation and /onitoring /e*hanis/@ )rticle CC, paragraph
', on the other hand, focuses on establishing a structure to oversee the
implementation of the +onvention. 5t re2uires States to maintain, strengthen,
designate or establish one or more independent mechanisms to promote, protect and
monitor implementation of the +onvention. 5mportantly, in setting up such
mechanisms, States have to ta1e into account Dthe principles relating to the status
and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rightsE,
otherwise 1nown as the #aris #rinciples. These are dealt with in greater detail below.
)t this stage, it is important to highlight the relevance of these #rinciples to ensuring
a truly independent and well7functioning national independent monitoring mechanism
as re2uired by the +onvention.
The +onvention also stipulates that *ivil so*iet1, particularly persons with disabilities and
their representative organi9ations, should participate fully in all aspects of this monitoring
process, Bust as they are to be involved in the development and implementation of policies,
programmes and legislation to implement the +onvention, in line with article K.
This reference to civil society raises at least two issues:
,,
4a6 +ivil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative
organi9ations, should be involved in the monitoring process underta1en by the
independent monitoring mechanism established under article CC 4and ideally also in
the wor1 of focal points and coordination mechanisms6<
4b6 +ivil society itself has a role to play in monitoring the +onvention, independently of
the other mechanisms established under article CC.
5n addition to the specific monitoring, promotion and protection framewor1 set up under the
+onvention, 2arlia/ents as well as national *ourts and tribunals can also play a 1ey role
in promoting and protecting the rights in the +onvention. -ther relevant mechanisms include
labour ins2e*torates s*hool ins2e*tors and any other mechanisms that have a role in
monitoring rights. They should monitor the rights of persons with disabilities as part of their
general monitoring functions.
The inclusion of an article detailing national implementation and monitoring structures and
their functions continues a trend in human rights treaties towards strengthening the national
monitoring of human rights. #rior to the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with
,isabilities, the -ptional #rotocol to the +onvention against Torture and -ther +ruel,
5nhuman or ,egrading Treatment or #unishment also re2uired State parties to set up
national preventive mechanisms.
?o*al 2oints and *oordination /e*hanis/s in the Govern/ent
*iven that State parties to the +onvention have different forms of government and are
organi9ed differently, the article relating to focal points and coordination mechanisms is
flexible and therefore adaptable.
owever, since other international instruments, such as the @orld #rogramme of )ction
concerning ,isabled #ersons and the Standard !ules on the 82uali9ation of -pportunities
for #ersons with ,isabilities, have also called for the establishment of similar entities, it is
worth reflecting on their experience to orient the implementation of article CC.
The focal point7s8
@here focal points on disability exist, it is nonetheless important to give such
mechanisms an explicit mandate in relation to the +onvention. 5n addition, this
mandate should be revised to ensure that it is sufficiently broad to cover the
implementation of the +onvention in full.
=or the effective implementation of the +onvention, it might be advisable to adopt a
two7pronged approach and appoint focal points in each or most governmental
departments"ministries as well as designate one overall focal point within the
*overnment responsible for implementation.
Fesides functional focal points in the ministries concerned, the State might establish
focal points at different levels of government, e.g., local, regional and
national"federal.
The mandate of the focal point4s6 should ideally include promoting awareness of the
+onvention within the ministry designated as focal point, participation in the
development of an action plan on the +onvention, and monitoring and reporting on
implementation within their functional lines 4but remember. this monitoring does not
replace the one foreseen in paragraph F6.
5f a decision is ta1en to appoint one overall focal point, the following considerations
are relevant:
,9
o =irst, the +onvention0s shift in approach to disability, away from a medical and
charity approach to one based on human rights, needs to be reflected in the
choice of focal point. The ministry of health should not be designated as the
*overnment focal point, because that would reinforce the understanding of
disability as a medical condition. Similarly, placing the focal point within the
ministries of welfare or labour as is the practice in the maBority of State parties
may also need to be reviewed to ensure that a human rights approach is
adopted. )n alternative could be placing the focal point in ministries with
responsibility for Bustice and human rights 4which in some countries is, in any
case, the ministry of social affairs6.
o Second, implementation of the +onvention re2uires traction at the most
senior level. #lacing the focal point close to the heart of the *overnment,
such as in the office of the president or the prime minister, or the cabinet
office, would be ideal. Some State parties have already done this. owever, if
a ministry is appointed focal point and that minister is not part of the cabinet,
this might hamper effectiveness.
o Third, the mandate of the focal point should clearly focus on developing and
coordinating a coherent national policy on the +onvention. )s such, the focal
point should promote, guide, inform and advise the *overnment on matters
related to the implementation of the +onvention but not necessarily
implement it by delivering disability support services. The mandate could also
include coordinating *overnment action on the +onvention in respect of
reporting, monitoring, awareness7raising and liaising with the independent
monitoring framewor1 designated under article CC, paragraph ', of the
+onvention.
o =ourth, the focal point should represent the channel for civil society and
organi9ations of persons with disabilities to communicate with the
*overnment on the +onvention0s implementation.
o =ifth, the focal point should have ade2uate technical staff and resources.
#lacing the focal point within a large ministry could ensure this.
The Handbook for Parliamentarians on the +onvention on the Rights of Persons $ith
,isabilities and its 2ptional Protocol
D
identifies possible tas1s of the national focal point4s6 as
follows:
)dvise the ead of State"*overnment, policyma1ers and programme planners on
the development of policies, legislation, programmes and proBects with respect to
their impact on people with disabilities<
+oordinate the activities of various ministries and departments on human rights and
disability<
+oordinate activities on human rights and disability at federal, national, regional,
State, provincial and local levels of government<
!evise strategies and policies to ensure that the rights of persons with disabilities are
respected<
+oordinate the drafting, revision or amendment of relevant legislation<
!aise awareness about the +onvention and its -ptional #rotocol within the
*overnment<
8nsure that the +onvention and its -ptional #rotocol are translated into local
languages and issued in accessible formats<
8stablish an action plan for the +onvention0s implementation<
Monitor the implementation of the action plan on human rights and disabilities<
+oordinate the preparation of the State0s initial and periodic reports<
9
0rom E3clusion to E-uality: Reali1ing the rights of persons $ith disabilities 4'((J6.
90
!aise public awareness on disability7related issues and the rights of persons with
disabilities<
Fuild capacity within the *overnment on disability7related issues<
8nsure and coordinate the collection of data and statistics for effective policy
programming and evaluation of implementation<
8nsure that persons with disabilities participate in the development of policies and
laws that affect them<
8ncourage persons with disabilities to participate in organi9ations and civil society,
and encourage the creation of organi9ations of persons with disabilities
The coordination mechanism
)lthough optional, the establishment of a coordination mechanism at governmental level in
addition to focal points is encouraged under the +onvention.
) coordination mechanism could, for example, ta1e the shape of an interministerial group,
i.e., representatives from the ministries concerned tas1ed with coordinating the +onvention0s
implementation across departments"sectors or levels of government. *iven the breadth of
the +onvention, all ministries will have some responsibilities for implementing parts of it.
Some coordinating mechanisms include representatives of various ministries as well as of
organi9ations of persons with disabilities, other civil society organi9ations, the private sector
and trade unions. Their mandate often focuses on policy development, the promotion of
dialogue on disability, awareness7raising and similar functions.
Note that coordination mechanism could prove particularly beneficial in countries with
systems of devolved administration, such as federal States.
Trainers should endeavour to identify national and regional mechanisms that are relevant to
the context of the training so that participants are provided with sufficient examples of
existing mechanisms.
National inde2endent /e*hanis/s for i/2le/entation and /onitoring
5n addition to designating the above institutions, the +onvention re2uires States to maintain,
strengthen, designate or establish a framewor1 to Dpromote, protect and monitorE the
implementation of the +onvention.
State parties may choose to set up specific disability mechanisms or assign the monitoring
function to existing entities. =urthermore, article CC does not prescribe a particular
organi9ational form for the national monitoring framewor1 and State parties are free to
determine the appropriate structure for their political and organi9ational context.
@hatever the organi9ational structure, article CC sets out three 1ey re2uirements for the
monitoring framewor1:
$. The State must /aintain strengthen designate or establish a framewor1 with
one or /ore /e*hanis/sE
'. The mechanism4s6 shall ta1e into account the Paris Prin*i2les. This does not mean
that only entities that comply with the #aris #rinciples should be included in the
framewor1, but the framewor1 should have at least one such entity<
91
C. Civil so*iet1 and in particular persons with disabilities and their representative
organi9ations need to be involved and fully participate in the monitoring process 4art.
CC 4C66.
The organi<ational stru*ture of the /onitoring fra/ework@ alternatives and
2referen*es F one or /ore /e*hanis/s
)n initial consideration for the State party is whether it should designate 4and maintain or
even strengthen6 an existing mechanism or establish an entirely new framewor1. 5n this
regard, the following factors are particularly relevant:
Human and financial resources9 The decision by a State to either modify and"or add
functions to an existing framewor1 or, instead, establish a new one will naturally be
affected by financial and human resource considerations. 5n some cases creating a
new structure shaped on the +onvention0s expectations could be more cost7effective
than reconceptuali9ing the mandate, the expertise and the mentality of an existing
institution< in others, the N!5, ombudsperson or speciali9ed agency could be
sufficiently flexible to adapt to additional tas1s.
+ommitment to the +onvention9 To have a fully functioning framewor1, commitment
to the +onvention0s innovative approach is as important as resources. The national
framewor1 should represent a ground7brea1ing human rights body, with its
promotion, protection and monitoring duties reflecting the +onvention0s principles.
The nomination of commissioners and"or staff needs to involve persons with
disabilities. The body has to be open to the participation of persons with disabilities
and their representative organi9ations 4see below6, and have sufficient credentials of
integrity, independence and expertise in human rights monitoring.
A t$in7track approach9 5n the context of development cooperation, it is recogni9ed
that, at times, disability7specific development measures are necessary while, at other
times, disability rights should be mainstreamed into general development
programmes, proBects and other interventions. The same logic can be applied to the
monitoring of the +onvention. )t times, specific 1nowledge of the +onvention, its
social"human rights approach and its general principles is essential to ensure that
monitoring respects the +onvention. =or example, in mainstream human rights wor1,
the #rinciples for the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement
of mental health care are still commonly applied, while disability rights experts
2uestion these #rinciples, which are sometimes in conflict with the +onvention.
+onse2uently, either ensuring full participation of disability rights experts or,
alternatively, having a stand7alone disability rights commissioner or other mechanism
might be preferable to having an existing human rights mechanism ta1e over the
monitoring role foreseen under article CC.
5n addition, the State must consider whether its national framewor1 will have one or more
mechanisms. ere are some options:
$. )ttribute the monitoring function to a single entit1, i.e., one independent mechanism
The explicit lin1 in article CC 4'6 between the framewor1 and the #aris #rinciples
suggests a preference for attributing the monitoring function to a national human
rights institution. Such attribution would certainly comply with the +onvention.
Nowadays, over $(( national human rights institutions have been established
worldwide. They may be called human rights commissions, ombudsmen or institutes.
92
'. )ttribute the function to a framewor1 consisting of more than one independent
mechanism
The +onvention also foresees the possibility of more than one independent
mechanism being appointed.
The Paris Prin*i2les in the *onte3t of the Convention
)n international wor1shop of national human rights institutions, held in #aris in $%%$, first
drafted the #rinciples relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for the
protection and promotion of human rights, 1nown today as the #aris #rinciples.
)rticle CC 4'6 of the +onvention re2uires State parties to ta1e these #rinciples into account
when designating or establishing mechanisms to promote, protect and monitor its
implementation. @ith reference to the +onvention, the #aris #rinciples would raise the
following 2uestions:
+ompetence and responsibilities
5n general terms:
as the mechanism been vested with competence to promote and protect the
+onvention0s provisionsA
5s the mandate as broad as possibleA
5s the mandate set forth in a legislative act or in the constitutionA
,oes the law establishing the mechanism set out the mechanism0s composition and
competence"mandateA
5n relation to specific responsibilities:
,oes the mandate include the possibility to hear any matter, without referral, relating
to the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilitiesA
+an the mechanism promote and ensure the harmoni9ation of national laws and
policies with the +onventionA
+an the mechanism encourage ratification of other human rights instruments, such
as the -ptional #rotocol to the +onventionA
+an the mechanism contribute to State reports to United Nations and regional
bodies, such as the +ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities or the
+onference of States #arties, and express its opinion on the subBectA
+an the mechanism assist in the formulation of programmes for disability rights
educationA
+an the mechanism publici9e the rights of persons with disabilities and raise
awareness about the +onvention, including through combating all forms of
discrimination based on disabilityA
+omposition and guarantees of independence and pluralism
5s the composition of the mechanism pluralistic< in particular, does it have experts
that reflect the diversity of disabilityA
9(
,oes the composition of the mechanism include and"or reflect: civil society, trends in
philosophical or religious thought, universities and 2ualified experts, parliamentA
@hile optional, does the composition of the mechanism include government
departments participating in the mechanism0s deliberations in an advisory capacityA
,oes the mechanism have sufficient powers to enable effective cooperation with
non7governmental organi9ations, including organi9ations of persons with disabilitiesA
5s the mechanism funded so that it has its own staff and premises, so that the
*overnment cannot subBect it to financial control in a way that might affect its
independenceA
5s the membership of the mechanism established by an official act which sets out the
specific duration of the mandateA
(ethods of operation
+an the mechanism freely consider any 2uestion falling within its competenceA
+an the mechanism hear any person and obtain any information necessary for
assessing situations falling within its competenceA
+an the mechanism address public opinion, including through publication of its
opinions and recommendationsA
+an the mechanism meet on a regular basisA
+an the mechanism establish wor1ing groups and set up local or regional sectionsA
+an the mechanism maintain consultation with other bodies responsible for the
promotion and protection of human rightsA
+an the mechanism establish and maintain relations with persons with disabilities
and their representative organi9ationsA
Additional principles concerning the status of commissions $ith -uasi4/urisdictional
competence
)n optional principle relates to the authori9ation of a mechanism to hear and consider
complaints and petitions concerning individual situations, such as claims that the rights of a
person with a disability have been breached. @here this option is granted, the power of the
mechanism should be based on four principles:
See1ing an amicable resolution through conciliation
5nforming petitioners of their rights and remedies
earing complaints or petitions and transmitting them to the competent authorities
Ma1ing recommendations to the competent authorities.
=or the #aris #rinciples to apply fully to the national framewor1 under article CC, it is
essential to ensure access to Bustice. 5n this connection, article $C re2uires States to:
8nsure effective access to Bustice for persons with disabilities on an e2ual basis with
others, including through the provision of procedural and age7appropriate
accommodations< and
#romote appropriate training for those wor1ing in the field of administration of Bustice,
including police and prison staff.
)ccessibility considerations and accommodation can relate for instance to:
)ccess to the building that houses the mechanism
9%
#ublication of reports, awareness7raising materials, recommendations, training
materials and so on in accessible formats
)ccess to the mechanism0s website
)ffirmative action policies to promote the employment of persons with disabilities
#rovision of reasonable accommodation to individual employees of the mechanism
#rovision of accessibility measures such as sign language interpretation during
public hearings.
?un*tions of the national /onitoring fra/ework
The independent monitoring framewor1 is expected to 2ro/ote 2rote*t and /onitor the
implementation of the +onvention. Slide $( in the computer slide presentation sets out some
examples of tas1s to promote, protect and monitor the rights of persons with disabilities.
Parti*i2ation and involve/ent of *ivil so*iet1 and 2ersons with disabilities
)rticle K 4C6 re2uires State #arties to ensure consultation with and active involvement of
persons with disabilities and their representative organi9ations in the development and
implementation of legislation and policies to implement the +onvention and in other
decision7ma1ing on the rights of persons with disabilities.
)rticle CC 4C6 re2uires civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their
representative organi9ations, to be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process.
)t the very least, this means that national structures established under article CC should
endeavour to involve and ensure the participation of persons with disabilities and their
representative organi9ations. No guidance is provided on how this participation could and
should ta1e place. The trainer could open the floor for discussion among course participants
on areas for involvement, such as:
Membership of the national framewor1, focal points and coordination mechanisms
+onsultation with representative organi9ations in the drafting of laws and regulations
establishing the various mechanisms
+onsultation with representative organi9ations on the appointment of 1ey figures
+onsultation with representative organi9ations in the development of annual
wor1plans
!egular hearings on the wor1 of national mechanisms for persons with disabilities
and their representative organi9ations
,esignation of an advisory group including representative organi9ations
#roduction of reports, recommendations and other documents relating to monitoring
in accessible formats
-pen facilities, goods and services through maintaining high accessibility standards
!eflection of the diversity of disabilities in activities to promote consultation and
participation.
There could be many other areas to promote consultation with and participation of persons
with disabilities and their representative organi9ations in the implementation and monitoring
of the +onvention. The group activity will provide a means to identify more.
Parlia/ents
5n addition to the specific monitoring arrangement set up by the +onvention, #arliament,
through its oversight function, plays a 1ey role in ensuring respect for the human rights of
9)
persons with disabilities. Narious #arliamentary mechanisms that could be relied upon
include:
9+
Parliamentary committees
#arliamentary committees oversee the executive. To be effective, they must be able to set
their own agendas and have the power to oblige ministers and civil servants to appear and
answer 2uestions. #arliamentary committees can as1 ministers and civil servants 2uestions
relating to the establishment of national framewor1s or any other matter relating to the
implementation and monitoring of the +onvention.
+ommissions of in-uiry
+ommissions of in2uiry are established when a maBor public concern arises involving
aspects not limited to the remit of specific parliamentary committees. This might be the case
where certain violations of the rights of persons with disabilities come to light, such as forced
institutionali9ation and forced treatment of persons with mental disabilities or systematic
exclusion of persons with disabilities from the general education system.
,irect -uestioning of ministers
,irect 2uestioning of ministers is relevant in countries where ministers are members of the
legislature. Muestioning might be oral or in writing and helps to maintain *overnment
accountability. #ersons with disabilities, their representative organi9ations or independent
mechanisms under article CC might contact local members or members of parliamentary
committees related to human rights in order to raise 2uestions for ministers with
responsibility for implementing the +onvention.
Scrutiny of e3ecutive appointments
Scrutiny of executive appointments is particularly relevant in countries where ministers are
not members of the legislature. =or example, for the appointments of ombudsmen, human
rights commissioners and cabinet members, it would be entirely appropriate for parliament
to verify the appointee0s 1nowledge of and attitude towards disability issues.
2versight over non4governmental public agencies
#arliament also monitors independent agencies to which the *overnment may have
devolved public functions, such as agencies involved in regulatory activities or the delivery
of front7line services. These include regulatory bodies for health and safety, service7delivery
agencies, public utilities and other agencies whose activities might have a direct impact on
the rights of persons with disabilities.
5udgetary scrutiny and financial control
#arliament holds considerable influence over policies through its control of the
*overnment0s budget, during the stages of formulation as well as expenditure. )s part of
this process, parliament can ensure that the impact of the proposed budget on different
social groups, such as persons with disabilities, is discussed and monitored.
National *ourts and tribunals
National courts can also play an important role in the implementation and monitoring of the
+onvention.
National courts have a role to protect the rights set out in the +onvention. @hile
persons with disabilities claiming a violation of their rights should be able to access
national human rights institutions and other mechanisms under article CC, they
9*
should also have the opportunity to see1 a legally enforceable remedy through
courts.
National courts have a role in interpreting and applying the +onvention nationally.
+ases that come before national Budges provide a means of testing the application of
the +onvention in national circumstances. ;udgements can help to clarify what global
standards mean in the national context.
National courts can complement the article CC mechanisms. 5n particular, if a case is
particularly important or complicated, the national mechanism might refer it to the
national courts to ensure the fullest consideration as well as a legally enforceable
solution.
)s a result of national court cases:
5t is possible to reflect upon areas where progress in the reali9ation of disability rights
has been possible as well as problem areas 4particularly where the same complaint
arises in several cases6<
!espect for the rights of persons with disabilities is strengthened. Not only does a
court case provide a remedy for the complainant, a court case can often provide the
trigger for law reform as well as clarity on the law. 5n addition, a case supporting
disability rights can help to raise awareness on the rights of persons with disabilities
and the +onvention. 5n doing so, similar violations can be prevented.
The trainer might consider researching national case law to identify disability7related cases.
The trainer could provide a summary of the case and then encourage participants to discuss
the various ways in which the Budiciary has been able to strengthen and protect the rights of
persons with disabilities.
9,
5%D&6( G
R(P%RT)NG T% T'( C%55)TT(( %N T'( R)G'TS %? P(RS%NS -)T'
D)S#$)6)T)(S@ ST#T( #ND #6T(RN#T)>( R(P%RTS
)NTR%D&CT)%N
The purpose of this module is to provide detail for States, civil society and national human
rights institutions on the process of reporting to the +ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with
,isabilities. States have an obligation to submit an initial report within two years of
ratification and to submit periodic reports thereafter. +ivil society and N!5s have a crucial
role to play in the reporting process by complementing information provided by the State
party. This module covers the content of State and alternative reports as well as the process
of drafting them, submitting them to the +ommittee and following up on the +ommittee0s
concluding observations and recommendations.
ST#T( R(P%RTS
The Co//ittee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Fefore discussing reports, it is important to understand the nature and role of the +ommittee
on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities, the +ommittee that receives reports from States
and other sta1eholders. )rticle CK establishes the +ommittee. 5t is a treaty body of $?
independent experts acting in their personal capacity. They are elected by State parties to
the +onvention at the +onference of States #arties and possess certain characteristics,
such as:
igh moral standing
!ecogni9ed competence and standing in the field covered by the +onvention.
@hen electing these experts, State parties should give consideration to a range of issues
explicitly referred to in article CK, including:
82uitable geographic distribution
!epresentation of different forms of civili9ation
!epresentation of the principal legal systems
*ender balance
#articipation of experts with disabilities.
This last criterion3the participation of experts with disabilities3is a novelty in the
+onvention and attests to the fact that persons with disabilities have often been excluded
from decision7ma1ing processes that affect them. 5n a similar vein, State parties are invited
to give due consideration to article K 4C6 when nominating experts. )rticle K 4C6 re2uires
States to consult closely with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children
99
with disabilities, and their representative organi9ations in decision7ma1ing processes that
affect them 4and specifically in relation to decisions on laws and policies6. @hile the call to
participation is relatively wea13States are only invited to consider this in nominating experts
3it nonetheless provides an indication that the nomination process should not be a purely
*overnment concern but that other parts of society also have a role to play and an interest in
the +ommittee0s membership.
The +ommittee0s experts are elected for a four7year term, renewable once.
The +ommittee0s main responsibility is to receive comprehensive reports from each State
party to the +onvention 4see below6.
5n addition, under the -ptional #rotocol, the +ommittee can:
!eceive communications 4complaints6 and issue recommendations on these
communications 4see module ?6<
Underta1e in2uiries into countries when there is reliable information indicating grave
or systematic violations of the +onvention 4see module ?6.
The +ommittee also underta1es thematic wor1. 5t:
olds days of general discussion on various themes, such as legal capacity and
accessibility<
)dopts general comments. ) general comment is an authoritative statement of the
+ommittee on particular themes or articles in the +onvention and can help State
parties in their tas1 of reporting to the +ommittee by identifying in greater detail what
specific provisions mean. The +ommittee is currently considering drafting general
comments on accessibility and on legal capacity.
=inally, the +ommittee has authority in relation to its own administration. =or example:
5t elects its +hair, adopts its wor1ing methods and rules of procedure and so on<
5t meets with representatives of civil society, national human rights institutions and
United Nations agencies to discuss issues related to the implementation and
monitoring of the +onvention<
5t coordinates with other treaty bodies to strengthen the treaty body system and
harmoni9e wor1ing methods.
The re7uire/ent on States to re2ort
)ccording to article C/ 4$6, DReSach State #arty shall submit to the +ommittee, through the
Secretary7*eneral of the United Nations, a comprehensive report on measures ta1en to give
effect to its obligations under the present +onvention and on the progress made in that
regard, within two years after the entry into force of the present +onvention for the State
#arty concerned.
)fter the initial report, the State party must submit subse2uent reports at least every four
years and whenever the +ommittee re2uests it. The subse2uent report is often referred to as
100
a periodic report. The possibility of the +ommittee re2uesting reports at any time was added
so that it can respond to particular situations that re2uire its attention outside the four7year
cycle.
The re2orting *1*le
The reporting cycle is similar to that under any human rights treaty. The important factor to
remember is that it is a cycle. 5t is not, or at least it should not be, a one7off event, but rather
a process that comprises the following steps:
,rafting the report through a consultative process both within the *overnment and
with counterparts such as civil society and N!5s, and submitting it<
#reparing and responding to the list of issues<
Meeting the +ommittee and having a constructive dialogue on implementation<
=ollowing up to the views and recommendations of the +ommittee<
#reparing for the next cycle on challenges since the previous dialogue with the
+ommittee and on implementation of the +ommittee0s recommendations.
) potentially significant difference compared to other treaties is the fact that State parties are
invited to consider adopting an open and transparent process in drafting the report, ta1ing
into account article K 4C6. )s noted above, this article re2uires States to consult closely with
and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, and their
representative organi9ations in decision7ma1ing processes that affect them 4and specifically
in relation to decisions on laws and policies6. )gain, the re2uirement on States is only to give
due consideration to the participation of persons with disabilities in the preparation of the
report. Nonetheless, it provides a further indication that this drafting process 4and indeed the
whole reporting cycle6 should not be a purely *overnment concern but also a legitimate
interest of other parts of society.
Do*u/ents to 2re2are
There are two main documents for the State to prepare:
The *o//on *ore do*u/ent should contain general information about the
reporting State, the general framewor1 for the protection and promotion of human
rights, disaggregated according to sex, age, main population groups and disability, as
well as information on non7discrimination and e2uality, and effective remedies, in
accordance with the harmoni9ed guidelines.
The treat14s2e*ifi* do*u/ent submitted to the +ommittee on the !ights of #ersons
with ,isabilities should not repeat the information included in the common core
document or merely list or describe the legislation adopted by the State party.
!ather, it should contain specific information relating to the implementation, in law
and in fact, of articles $ to CC of the +onvention, ta1ing into account analytical
information on recent developments in law and practice affecting the full reali9ation of
the rights recogni9ed in the +onvention by all persons, with all forms of disabilities
within the territory or Burisdiction of the State party. 5t should also contain detailed
information on substantive measures ta1en towards the aforementioned goals and
101
the resulting progress achieved. @here applicable, this information should be
presented in relation to policy and legislation of persons without disabilities. 5n all
cases, it should indicate data sources.
5ethodolog1
There is no strict methodology that States have to follow for the preparation of their reports,
but the following steps are relevant:
5dentifying a reporting group< normally, the focal point or the coordination mechanism
will have a role to play in drafting the report to the +ommittee. 8arly in the drafting
stage, the focal point and"or coordination mechanism should identify the ministries
and departments that have a role in implementing the +onvention, as they should be
on board. 5t is also useful to include civil society representatives in the group, bearing
in mind the importance of participation. The reporting group might identify a smaller
drafting group to prepare the first draft.
5nitial review of 1ey issues< at this stage, the reporting group should review the
+onvention as well as documents such as laws and policies as well as any studies
that have been done so as to identify the issues that are relevant to the report.
Hegal analysis and data collection< at this stage, the drafters should first of all review
laws, policies and strategies to examine the extent to which they comply with the
+onvention. 5n addition, studies, surveys, statistics and other materials should be
collected to bac1 up the legal analysis with facts and figures that reflect the current
situation of persons with disabilities.
)nalysis and preparation of the draft report< on the basis of the legal analysis and
data collection, a first draft can be prepared. The data collected should not simply be
reproduced, but be analysed by reference to the provisions of the +onvention to
identify the extent to which they are being implemented and also reveal the
challenges.
+onsultation within the *overnment and finali9ation of the report< the draft report
should be circulated to the broader reporting group to ensure that it reflects the
position of all relevant *overnment representatives. The *overnment should also
consider ways to circulate the draft to civil society so as to respect article CC, which
re2uires participation of persons with disabilities in monitoring the +onvention. The
draft might also be shared with the N!5 or independent framewor1 established
under article CC.
Content@ the re2orting guidelines
1"
The +ommittee has prepared reporting guidelines to advise States parties on the form and
content of their reports, so as to facilitate the preparation of reports and ensure that these
are comprehensive and presented in a uniform manner by States parties. +ompliance with
the reporting guidelines will also reduce the need for the +ommittee to re2uest further
information under article C. and under rule C., paragraph C, of its rules of procedure.
10
+!#,"+"'C.
102
5n relation to the rights recogni9ed in the +onvention, the treaty7specific document should
indicate:
@hether the State party has adopted policies, strategies and a national legal
framewor1 for the implementation of each +onvention right, identifying the resources
available for that purpose and the most cost7effective ways of using such resources<
@hether the State party has adopted comprehensive disability anti7discrimination
legislation to put into effect provisions of the +onvention in this regard<
)ny mechanisms in place to monitor progress towards the full reali9ation of the
+onvention rights, including recognition of indicators and related national
benchmar1s in relation to each +onvention right, in addition to the information
provided under appendix C of the harmoni9ed guidelines and ta1ing into account the
framewor1 and tables of illustrative indicators outlined by -+! 4!5"M+"'((?"C6<
Mechanisms in place to ensure that a State #arty0s obligations under the +onvention
are fully integrated in its actions as a member of international organi9ations<
The incorporation and direct applicability of each +onvention right in the domestic
legal order, with reference to specific examples of relevant legal cases<
The Budicial and other appropriate remedies in place enabling victims to obtain
redress in the case their +onvention rights have been violated<
Structural or other significant obstacles arising from factors beyond the State party0s
control which impede the full reali9ation of the +onvention rights, including details of
the steps being ta1en to overcome them<
Statistical data on the reali9ation of each +onvention right, disaggregated by sex,
age, type of disability 4physical, sensory, intellectual and mental6, ethnic origin,
urban"rural population and other relevant categories, on an annual comparative basis
over the past four years.
The treaty7specific document should be delivered in accessible electronic format and in print.
The report should follow paragraphs 'K to '. and '% of the harmoni9ed reporting guidelines.
The format of the +onvention7specific document should be in accordance with paragraphs
$% to 'C of the harmoni9ed reporting guidelines 4!5"*8N"'"!ev./, chap. 56. The initial report
should not exceed .( pages, and subse2uent +onvention7specific documents should be
limited to K( pages. #aragraphs should be numbered se2uentially.
The reporting guidelines suggest the following broad structure:
$. )rticles $7K
'. Specific provisions:
4a6 82uality and non7discrimination
4b6 )wareness7raising
4c6 )ccessibility
4d6 !ight to life
4e6 Situation of ris1 and humanitarian emergencies
4f6 82ual recognition before the law
4g6 )ccess to Bustice
4h6 Hiberty and security of the person
4i6 =reedom from torture
4B6 =reedom from exploitation, violence and abuse
416 #rotecting the integrity of the person
4l6 Hiberty of movement and nationality
4m6 Hiving independently and being included in the community
4n6 #ersonal mobility
4o6 =reedom of expression
10(
4p6 !espect for privacy
426 !espect for home and family
4r6 8ducation
4s6 ealth
4t6 abilitation and rehabilitation
4u6 @or1 and employment
4v6 )de2uate standard of living and social protection
4w6 #articipation in political and public life
4x6 #articipation in cultural life
C. Specific situation of boys, girls and women with disabilities
K. Specific obligations
4a6 Statistics and data collection
4b6 5nternational cooperation
4c6 National framewor1 for implementation and monitoring
The +ommittee0s reporting guidelines set out specific issues that State parties should report
on, provision by provision.
The initial report submitted by #eru 4+!#,"+"#8!"$6, part of which is reproduced below,
provides a good example as the State party reported on each of the guidelines identified by
the +ommittee. =or article '%, for instance, table below sets out the +ommittee0s guidelines
in the left7hand column and the measures underta1en in the right7hand column. The
example is interesting for at least two reasons:
=irst, the State party ma1es the effort to report on each of the 2uestions identified
in the reporting guidelines<
Second, the information provided does not appear to answer the 2uestions posed
by the +ommittee. =or example, the first response to the re2uest for legislation
and measures to guarantee political rights mentions only the legal framewor1 but
does not refer explicitly to persons with mental or intellectual disabilities, nor does
it clarify whether the act does in fact guarantee political rights to persons with
disabilities. 5nstead, it only mentions facilitating voting by persons with disabilities
4which is not exactly the same thing6. This demonstrates the importance of the
constructive dialogue with the +ommittee to clarify such ambiguities.
!0.#rti*le !9@ Parti*i2ation in 2oliti*al and 2ubli* life
?$. This article guarantees political rights to persons with
disabilities.
Report on Progress
Hegislation and measures to guarantee to
persons with disabilities, in particular persons
with mental or intellectual disability, political
rights, including, if it is the case, existing
limitations and actions ta1en to overcome them
Since the adoption of )ct No. '%KJ? by
+ongress in ,ecember '((%, the National
8lection #rocedures -ffice has had the
necessary legal framewor1 to facilitate voting by
persons with disabilities.
Measures ta1en to ensure the right to vote of all
persons with disabilities, on their own or to be
assisted by a person of their choice
The national identity card also serves as the
one and only type of voter registration card. 5ts
use is compulsory for all citi9ens, and the
National 5dentity and +ivil Status !egistry has
10%
Report on Progress
issued an administrative decision under which
national identity cards are to be issued free of
charge to persons with disabilities, following
verification of eligibility.
Measures ta1en to ensure the full accessibility
of the voting procedures, facilities and materials
Under )ct No. '%KJ?, the National 8lection
#rocedures -ffice maintains a register of
citi9ens with disabilities in order to facilitate their
access to the ballot box by: 4a6 preparing ballot
papers in Fraille 4Fraille templates6 for citi9ens
with visual disabilities< 4b6 setting up voting
booths at ground7floor level in polling stations<
4c6 temporarily moving voting booths from upper
floors in polling stations to ensure that persons
with disabilities do not have to climb stairs< 4d6
putting up signs in polling stations to guide
citi9ens with disabilities and publici9ing the
measures ta1en to facilitate their access to
voting booths. The register can be consulted on
the -ffice0s website.
5ndicators measuring the full enBoyment of the
right to participate in political and public life of
persons with disabilities
5n '((K>'((J, $(,J/? persons with disabilities
exercised their right to vote.
T Nationally, the total number of identity cards
issued free of charge to persons with disabilities
between '((C and / March '($( was .J,J'%, of
which C?,?(/ were issued to adults and '?,%'K
to minors.
Support provided, if any, to persons with
disabilities for the establishment and
maintenance of organi9ations to represent their
rights and interests at local, regional and
national level
Since '(($, the National +ouncil for the
5ntegration of #ersons with ,isabilities
4+-N),5S6 has maintained a register of
associations, N*-s and other organi9ations that
wor1 to benefit persons with disabilities and to
address the problems they face< in a number of
those organi9ations, parents and relatives of
persons with disabilities sit on the board of
directors. +urrently, C$( institutions have been
entered on the roster maintained by the National
!egistry< this authori9es them to enter into
cooperative arrangements, gives them access to
international cooperation funding and enables
them to promote the social integration of their
members.

6ist of issues
-nce the +ommittee has received the State party0s report, its country rapporteur 4a member
of the +ommittee6 will examine it, and the +ommittee with the assistance of the rapporteur
10)
will decide if there is any information missing from the report. -n this basis, the +ommittee
forwards a list of issues to the State party with a view to completing the information in the
report. *enerally, State parties will respond to the list of issues in writing prior to the
constructive dialogue with the +ommittee.
The list of issues is normally decided by the +ommittee at the session before the
constructive dialogue with the State party. This allows the State party sufficient time to
respond. 5t also gives the +ommittee time to reflect on the additional information provided by
the State and decide whether it now has enough information or whether further follow7up is
necessary during the constructive dialogue.
The report of Tunisia provides an example of how the list of issues wor1s. The State party, in
its initial report, provided information on the rights of children with disabilities, although this
focused primarily on health and education. Tunisia did not provide information on the
protection of children from violence and exploitation. The +ommittee therefore re2uested this
information. 5n its response 4+!#,"+"TUN"M"$")dd.$6, Tunisia noted:
$.. )ssociations have called for increased efforts in
legislative, administrative, social, educational, cultural and other
spheres to prevent such practices.
$J. 5n this regard we should li1e to mention that the +hild
#rotection +ode promulgated by )ct No. %' of % November $%%/
guarantees children in general and children with disabilities in
particular freedom from various forms of exploitation, violence and
abuse. Under the said +ode, sexual or economic exploitation and
habitual mistreatment of children are considered as difficult situations
that re2uire swift intervention by both child protection officers and
family Budges in order to protect children.
+hild protection officers
$?. +hild protection officers are experts on social issues and
intervene in all situations in which the physical or mental health and
safety of children could be at ris1 as a result of the environment in
which they live or because they are vulnerable to various forms of
abuse and exploitation.
$%. +hild protection officers are one of the most important
social protection mechanisms for children at ris1< there is one child
protection officer in every province, although there can be more than
one, if needed, in order to ensure swift and effective intervention and
to protect children from all possible harm.
'(. *iven the importance of reporting mechanisms in
strengthening society0s role in protecting children from various forms
of violence, abuse and exploitation, the +hild #rotection +ode
provides that all situations in which children are living in difficult
circumstances must be reported to a child protection officer, focusing
on threats to children0s physical, mental and economic health and
safety.
'$. To underscore the importance of this mechanism in the
protection of children at ris1, although persons bound by professional
secrecy do not have a duty to report, those who do so enBoy legal
10+
protection through impunity as they are acting in good faith by
reporting, even if the report proves to be incorrect.
0amily /udges
''. =amily Budges in cases involving children with disabilities
at ris1 of exploitation, violence or abuse are re2uired to ta1e the
appropriate decision in order to remove them from the difficult
situation in which they are living, ta1ing into account their best
interests, which all courts, administrative authorities and public or
private social welfare establishments must ta1e into consideration
when ta1ing any action relating to children.
'C. @hen the source of the violence, exploitation or abuse is
the child0s family, a family Budge can decide to remove the child from
his family and place him in a foster family, a speciali9ed social or
educational institution or a training or educational centre. e may
also send a child who has suffered physical or mental harm as a
result of exploitation, abuse or violence for medical treatment, in
order to ensure the child0s reintegration in society.
'K. ) child who is the victim of a crime of violence is in a
difficult situation that re2uires the intervention of a family Budge to
address the underlying causes and the conditions in which the child
was subBected to such a crime.
5t is interesting to note that the State party provides little information on the protection of
children with disabilities specifically, but more on its child protection system more generally.
@hile this of course should apply to children with disabilities, too, there are a range of
reasons why laws and policies should specifically mention the protection of children with
disabilities. =or example, adults might have difficulty communicating with children who are
deaf, which in turn might ma1e them more susceptible to violence and abuse as they might
not be able to see1 protection.
)lthough the State party did not fully address the +ommittee0s 2uestion, it nonetheless
helped the +ommittee to identify that there is a child protection system in place, allowing for
more specific 2uestioning during the +ommittee0s session and hence ensuring the optimal
use of the +ommittee0s limited time.
The Co//ittee9s session
The next step is for the State party to come before the +ommittee to enter into a constructive
dialogue. -n that basis, the +ommittee will issue concluding observations and
recommendations for the State party.
The +ommittee currently has two sessions a year with many items on its agenda. The first
day will typically begin with opening speeches by its +hair and a representative of -+!.
This will be followed by discussions in plenary session with representatives of United
Nations organi9ations such as the @orld ealth -rgani9ation 4@-6 and the 5nternational
Habour -rgani9ation 45H-6 as well as -+! and then by representatives of civil society. 5n
the afternoon, the +ommittee continues to meet representatives to hear about specific
initiatives related to accessibility or the national implementation of the +onvention. The
+ommittee might also meet in private session to prepare the dialogue with a State party.
10*
The +ommittee will then meet with the State party. The +ommittee0s dialogue with Spain
lasted a full day, i.e., two sessions of three hours each. The session begins with the
presentation by the State representative and then an introduction by the +ommittee0s
country rapporteur. The +ommittee0s members then ta1e the floor to reflect on the State
party0s report and as1 additional 2uestions. The dialogue proceeds in stages, in accordance
with the reporting guidelines: general discussion< articles $>K< then discussions on rights<
then rights of women and children with disabilities< and specific obligations 4national
framewor1s, data collection and international cooperation6. The State representatives are
given time to respond at intermittent stages throughout the day. The +ommittee will then
meet in private session to discuss its concluding observations and recommendations, which
also ta1es some time.
5n addition to the constructive dialogue, the +ommittee discusses communications under the
-ptional #rotocol, as well as other topical issues such as its report to the *eneral )ssembly
4if relevant at that particular session6, treaty body strengthening, its methods of wor1, the
drafting of any general comments or the preparation of future days of general discussion.
5ts concluding observations follow the format of those of other treaty bodies. They begin with
the positive aspects of implementation by the State party. They then move onto Dfactors and
difficulties impeding implementationE and Dprincipal areas of concern and recommendationsE.
The latter are expressed in terms of observations followed by recommendations and follow
the format of the report, namely articles $>K, specific rights, and specific obligations.
To continue with the example of Tunisia, it is interesting to see that the preoccupations of the
+ommittee at the list7of7issues stage appeared to have continued and the responses of the
State party were insufficient to allay these concerns. 5n the concluding observations
4+!#,"+"TUN"+-"$6, the +ommittee noted:
Children with disabilities +art. G,
$.. The +ommittee is particularly concerned at the low rate of
reporting 4signalement6 of cases of habitual mistreatment of children,
including children with disabilities, which may amount to situations of
danger, in view of the results of the Multiple 5ndicator +luster Survey
4M5+S '((.6 which indicated that %K per cent of children aged
between ' and $K years are disciplined in the home through violent
means, whether verbal, physical, or through deprivation.
$J. The Co//ittee re*o//ends that the State 2art1@
+a, (valuate the 2heno/enon of violen*e against bo1s
and girls with disabilities and *o/2ile s1ste/ati*
disaggregated data +see 2ara. 09 below, with a view to better
*o/bating it<
+b, (nsure that institutions 2roviding *are for *hildren
with disabilities are staffed with s2e*iall1 trained 2ersonnel
sub=e*t to a22ro2riate standards regularl1 /onitored and
evaluated and establish *o/2laint 2ro*edures a**essible to
*hildren with disabilitiesE
+*, (stablish inde2endent follow4u2 /e*hanis/sE and
+d, Take ste2s to re2la*e institutional *are for bo1s and
girls with disabilities with *o//unit14based *are.
10,
?ollow4u2
-nce the concluding observations have been adopted, they are posted almost immediately
on the -+! website 4www.ohchr.org6.
owever, the State party has a 1ey role in the follow7up. )ccording to article C. 4K6 of the
+onvention:
States Parties shall make their reports $idely available to the public in their o$n
countries and facilitate access to the suggestions and general recommendations
relating to these reports9
So States should at the very least publici9e concluding observations. 5n addition, they should
see1 ways to follow up on recommendations as they will have to report on implementation
four years later.
Fearing these responsibilities in mind, the State might:
5ssue a press release about the dialogue and concluding observations<
old a press conference about the concluding observations<
8nsure that the focal point, coordination mechanism and national independent
framewor1 receive copies of the concluding observations<
old a round table with civil society and N!5s to discuss the concluding
observations<
,raw up an implementation plan that includes deadlines for the implementation of the
recommendations and specifies the entities responsible for implementation<
See1 the assistance of the United Nations country team for implementation, where
necessary.
The fun*tions of re2orting
5t is important to remember that reporting is not a one7off event or something that has to be
done merely to fulfil an obligation under the +onvention. 5t is a fundamental part of the whole
implementation process. So reporting to the +ommittee is both an end in itself, but also a
way to strengthen implementation. Some of the functions of reporting can be summari9ed as
follows:
!eviewing implementation to date
5dentifying strengths and challenges in implementation
See1ing assistance from international experts with implementation
5mproving data collection and analysis in relation to persons with disabilities
5mproving understanding of the +onvention through drafting the report
109
Strengthening coordination in the *overnment 4the coordination re2uired for
reporting can also strengthen internal coordination mechanisms for ongoing
implementation6
Strengthening dialogue and partnerships with civil society and N!5s on
implementation
Sharing experience on implementation with other countries through publication of the
national report
-therA
#6T(RN#T)>( R(P%RTS
Civil so*iet1BN'R) in2ut into the re2orting *1*le
!eporting to the +onvention is not a single or isolated event. 5nstead, it is a process and civil
society organi9ations and National uman !ights 5nstitutions 4N!5s6 can contribute to the
various stages of the process. The overall process is as follows 4indicating where civil
society organi9ations and N!5s can influence6:
Drafting the State 2art1 re2ort > the State is responsible for preparing its initial and
periodic reports. 5n some countries, the State reaches out to civil society and National
uman !ights 5nstitutions when preparing the report. They might hold a consultation
with 1ey organi9ations or circulate the report for review. Some countries annex the
views of civil society to the report. 8ven where these practices are not present, civil
society organi9ations and N!5s can attempt to have their say in the preparation and
content of the report by contacting +onvention focal points in *overnment or, where
it exists, the coordination mechanism.
Pre2aring the list of issues > the +onvention will develop a list of issues on the
basis of the State party report to send to the State party in order for the State party to
prepare for the constructive dialogue. The State party should also provide answers to
the list of issues prior to the session > which helps to focus the discussion. +ivil
society organi9ations can provide information at the time of submission of the State
party report and, in this way, influence the list of issues that are provided to the State
for clarification in preparation of the interactive dialogue. 5n addition, civil society
organi9ations can provide answers to the list of issues which will ensure the
+ommittee has the widest possible information before it.
The Co//ittee session > during the +ommittee0s session, civil society
organi9ations and N!5s can play an active role. The +ommittee will generally meet
with civil society organi9ations and N!5s related to the reporting country to hear
issues of interest and concern. 5ndividuals can also use the opportunity of being in
*eneva to meet with +ommittee members to discuss various implementation issues
they face nationally. +ivil society organi9ations and N!5s can also be present
during the dialogue with the State party. =ollowing the dialogue in this way can clarify
how the +ommittee identified its various concluding observations which in turn can
help with follow7up later at the country7level.
110
?ollow4u2 to *on*luding observations > civil society organi9ations and N!5s
have crucial roles in ensuring follow7up. @hile the ultimate responsibility for
implementing concluding observations rests with the *overnment, civil society
organi9ations and N!5s can also play their part. This is considered in greater detail
below.
-'#T #R( #6T(RN#T)>( R(P%RTS.
)lternative reports are one way3and a significant one3in which civil society and N!5s can
have their say in the reporting process. There is no strict definition of an alternative report
and there is no strict format to follow as such. 5n general, an alternative report provides the
+ommittee with complementary information to that provided by the State party with a view to
ensuring the +ommittee has the fullest information before it.
)n alternative report will not necessarily contradict the State report, but simply add to it or
provide an alternative perspective on issues raised in the State report. owever, if a State
report does not provide the most accurate or up7to7date information, the alternative report
can alert the +ommittee to such information.
Fy providing complementary information, the ultimate aim of alternative reports is to ensure
the most relevant concluding observations and recommendations to assist with future
implementation.
STR&CT&R( %? T'( R(P%RT
There is no re2uirement to structure alternative reports in a particular way< however, drafters
should consider a methodological approach that assists the +ommittee to understand how
the report was compiled and that identifies in as clear a manner as possible the issues civil
society and N!5s wish to raise with the +ommittee as well as possible solutions.
The following is one possible structure, drawn in large part from the +ommittee0s reporting
guidelines:
$. 8xecutive summary setting out the principal concerns, advances and
recommendations
'. Table of contents
C. Methodology for preparing the report, including the process of data collection and
which organi9ations have been involved in preparing and finali9ing the report
K. ,iscussion of the general bac1ground3political, economic, social, cultural3that
might help the +ommittee better understand the context of the report
/. Qey issues:
4a6 )rticles $7K: purpose, definitions, general principles and general obligations
4b6 )rticles />C(: in relation to specific rights
4c6 )rticles . and J: boys, girls and women with disabilities
111
4d6 )rticles C$>CC: specific obligations in relation to data and statistics,
international cooperation and national implementation and monitoring
framewor1s
.. !ecommendations, to be as precise and directed as possible. There is no need to
include many.
5(T'%D%6%GY@ ?%R5)NG # C%#6)T)%N ?%R #N #6T(RN#T)>( R(P%RT
)lthough not a re2uirement, it can be useful to form a coalition of national sta1eholders to
prepare the alternative report. This helps the +ommittee by providing it with one document
covering the various concerns of civil society across the country. 5n addition:
=orming a coalition to draft the report also helps to form national civil society
coalitions to wor1 on issues beyond the alternative report. =or example, the coalition
might not only prepare the alternative report but wor1 together on implementing the
+ommittee0s recommendations.
Similarly, it allows sta1eholders to understand issues of concern in areas beyond
their own focus. =or example, one organi9ation focusing on service delivery for
persons with physical disabilities might learn about the concerns of another that is
wor1ing to protect the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities in prisons. This
provides an opportunity to learn about the wor1 of other disability groups and identify
common areas of activities such as advocacy.
=urthermore, forming coalitions allows groups to capitali9e on 1nowledge and
expertise. =or example, a ,#- might have extensive experience on protecting
disability rights nationally and could pair up with the more general human rights
organi9ation with extensive experience in treaty body reporting. Foth organi9ations
bring something to the table and can ma1e for an effective process and useful
alternative report.
Some issues to consider in forming coalitions are:
)re all disability constituencies representedA
5s the diversity of society reflected as much as possible, e.g., men and women, a
child perspective, older persons, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous persons and
so on.
5s there sufficient 1nowledge about the treaty body reporting systemA
5s there sufficient capacity to consult with as wide a group as possibleA
C%NT(NT@ SP(C)?)C R)G'TS
5t is advisable for alternative reports to follow the +ommittee0s reporting guidelines. This
means that the report aligns with the +ommittee0s practice and also with the State report,
assuming that the State has followed the reporting guidelines when preparing its report. )s
noted above, the +ommittee groups the rights and obligations in the +onvention as follows:
112
,efinitions, general principles and general obligations<
Specific rights<
The rights of women, boys and girls with disabilities<
Specific obligations, namely data and statistics, international cooperation and
national implementation and monitoring framewor1s.
The reporting guidelines also provide a list of 2uestions that should be addressed in relation
to the various provisions under these headings.
=or example, the +ommittee0s guidelines for article / on non7discrimination and e2uality are:
This article recogni1es that all persons are e-ual before the la$ $ith entitlement to
e-ual protection and benefit of the la$ on e-ual grounds $ithout any discrimination9
States parties should report on:
"hether persons $ith disabilities are able to use the la$ to protect or pursue
their interests on an e-ual basis $ith others
Effective measures taken to guarantee persons $ith disabilities e-ual and
effective legal protection against all types of discrimination. including the
provision of reasonable accommodation
Policies and programmes. including affirmative action measures. to achieve
the de facto e-uality of persons $ith disabilities. taking into account their
diversity9
Spain provided the following information in response to these 2uestions in its initial report
4+!#,"+"8S#"$, paras. $/>$., emphasis added6:
GH9 'n the sphere of disability. full compliance with this
article is ensured by the GDIJ +onstitution and '2*,A) ?Act *o9
HG!FKKL on e-uality of opportunity. non4discrimination and universal
accessibility for persons $ith disabilitiesA mentioned earlier9 +hapter
'' of the latter is devoted to e-uality of opportunityC specifically. it
defines infringements of the right to e-uality of opportunity 7as
defined in art9 G8 and specifies t$o types of measure $hich the public
authorities must take to guarantee that right. namely anti4
discrimination and affirmative action measures9 'n addition. article GK
of '2*,A) re-uires the Government to regulate the basic
conditions to govern accessibility and non4discrimination in a number
of spheres and areas9 However, in view of the entry into force of
the Convention, steps are being taken to revise existing
legislationC there is already a proposal to amend articles GK and GJ
of the General Health Act *o9 GM!GDJN to include a mention of
disability as one of the grounds on $hich no person may be
discriminated against9
GN9 The entry into force of !"#D$% and its enabling
regulations, together with the mechanisms for supervision and
11(
the imposition of penalties, is a basis for the achievement and
guaranteeing of e&uality and non'discrimination9 'n addition. it
offers the system effective safeguards against discrimination of any
kind9 The establishment of specific regulations and action plans and
programmes in the different areas is the responsibility of the
ministerial departments concerned. $hich $ill in any case have to
adapt to the ne$ standards9
5n summary:
Spanish legislation ensures full compliance with article /<
Some legislation nevertheless re2uires revision in the light of the +onvention, such
as the *eneral ealth )ct<
Hegislation together with the supervisory mechanisms and sanctions imposed for
breaches of the law provide an effective regime to guarantee e2uality and non7
discrimination.
The alternative report provides the +ommittee with a longer response to its 2uestions as well
as complementary information. 5t notes that:
#rotection against discrimination in Spanish legislation is not in line with the
+onvention as it is restricted to persons with a certificate indicating a degree of
disability above CC per cent 4although the *overnment has expressed its intention to
repeal this re2uirement6<
)dministrative and legal protection against discrimination is not effective. There are
supervisory and sanctions mechanisms but these face two obstacles:
/ There is no data to demonstrate that the infraction system is being applied
and so its efficacy is un1nown. -n the $( complaints filed there has been no
action.
/ The procedures are slow 4ta1ing $$ to '. months6, which can lead to
irreparable damage.
R(C%55(ND#T)%NS
5t is important for alternative reports to propose action that the +ommittee can ta1e, such as
2uestions that the +ommittee could put to the State representatives. )lternatively, it could
propose recommendations to be included in the concluding observations. The important
thing to remember is that recommendations should be as clear and targeted as possible so
that they can be implemented and reflected in the next periodic report. Nague or general
recommendations might be confusing for the State party to implement or lead to non7
implementation or ineffective implementation.
Some guidelines for recommendations are:
They should be clear
8ach one should contain only one action
11%
They should specify who should implement them
5f possible, they should be measureable
@here relevant, they should specify a time frame for implementation
They should be lin1ed to a particular implementation challenge
They should not be vague or general
Still in connection with article /, the alternative report on Spain0s implementation ma1es two
sets of recommendations.
5n relation to the claim that protection against discrimination fails to protect certain persons
with disabilities, it proposes a focus not on percentages of disability but on vulnerability:
't is important. not only to e3tend protection against discrimination in line $ith the
+onvention. but also to consider the situation of those persons $ho. despite having a
permanent disability and obvious difficulty in accessing and e3ercising their rights
7this can be clearly. although not e3clusively. seen $ith regard to the right to $ork. or
education8 do not meet the re-uirements of the administrative concept of disability9 'n
this regard. +ER(' ?Spanish +ommittee of Representatives of Persons $ith
,isabilitiesA have already proposed that certain particularly vulnerable groups $ho
are in a situation of legal neglect 7persons $ith limited intelligence. for e3ample8
should receive administrative recognition. and it is necessary that the Spanish State
identify situations of great vulnerability and adopt the measures needed to $iden the
protection of the rights of persons in a situation of disability in accordance $ith the
?+onventionA9
5n relation to the claim that the supervisory and sanctions mechanisms were not completely
effective, the alternative report recommends:
'nclude indicators monitoring the efficacy of the protection systems follo$ing
up matters both in the administrative disciplinary area and follo$4up
indicators in the legal area
"ith regard to the legal protection on fundamental rights. principally in the
contentious4administrative and civil areas. it is necessary to hasten
processes or establish immediate protection measures 7similar to in/unction
proceedings8
Ensure that the system of infractions and sanctions of '2*,A) is developed
on a regional level and started effectively
Promote the arbitration system covered by '2*,A)
E3tend the benefit of free (ustice to all situations $here protection has been
re-uested of a fundamental right $hich has been violated on the grounds of
disability. $ith no financial restrictions to its application9
11)
The recommendations are helpful, although not all of them meet the suggestions listed
above. +onsider the following recommendation:
'nclude indicators monitoring the efficacy of the protection systems follo$ing up
matters both in the administrative disciplinary area and follo$4up indicators in the
legal area
5n general terms, the recommendation is helpful:
5t is clear
5t is measureable
5t lin1s with and responds to an implementation challenge
5t is not vague or general.
5t could be improved by:
Specifying which governmental authority should develop the indicators
Setting a time frame for this to occur.
D#T# C%66(CT)%N #ND #N#6YS)S
There are several data sources that could be helpful for the alternative report:
Haws and policies. The alternative report, as with the State report, should provide the
+ommittee with information on the legal and policy context as it relates to the
+onvention0s implementation. This re2uires a mapping of laws and a gap analysis.
See the forthcoming -+! handboo1 on legislation, which should assist in
identifying legal compliance with the +onvention.
!eview of secondary materials. +ivil society organi9ations might not have the time or
the resources to collect new data. -ne way to overcome this situation is to rely on
trustworthy secondary sources of information. =or instance:
!eports, such as census data or ad hoc reports, from the national statistical
institute
,ata from ministries of education, health, social affairs, transport
!eports from the United Nations and the @orld Fan1 might either include
information on persons with disabilities or even focus specifically on
disabilities
National human rights institutions might have information such as research
reports
)cademic institutions might have underta1en research or surveys on the
rights of persons with disabilities.
11+
5nformation on complaints 4such as court cases, complaints to the ombudsman and
so on6 can show whether individuals are using complaints mechanisms and whether
such mechanisms are effective. )n analysis of complaints can also identify
challenging and recurring issues in implementation.
5t might be possible for civil society organi9ations to underta1e their own research for
the alternative report. Techni2ues such as household surveys can provide
2uantitative information, while interviews with 1ey experts and interviews with groups
reflecting the diversity of disability can provide important 2ualitative information that
could add depth to the report, for example, by reflecting an individual0s actual
experience of human rights in the national context.
S&$5)TT)NG T'( R(P%RT T% T'( C%55)TT((
The drafters should submit their alternative report to the +ommittee in time for it to be
considered in full. This could be done:
)t the time of submission of the State report. owever, given the delays in the
+ommittee0s review of State reports, this might re2uire updating the report prior to
the constructive dialogue.
#rior to the +ommittee0s session preceding its review of the State party report. =or
example, if the State party will be reviewed at the tenth session, the +ommittee0s
secretariat should receive the alternative report before the ninth session, so the
report can influence the list of issues.
#rior to the session itself. 5n this way, the alternative report can still influence the
constructive dialogue with the State and will be fully up to date.
The report should be sent to the -ffice of the United Nations igh +ommissioner for uman
!ights, secretariat of the +ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities, at
crpdWohchr.org.
+ivil society organi9ations might also consider attending the +ommittee0s sessions either:
)t the session prior to the constructive dialogue with the State. The 5nternational
,isability )lliance holds a lunchtime session for the +ommittee0s members, which is
open to the public, to discuss issues relating to the State party whose report will be
reviewed at the next session.
or
)t the session of the constructive dialogue. The +ommittee will set aside time to
meet civil society organi9ations and N!5s prior to the constructive dialogue to have
their views. These sessions are normally closed.
?%66%-4&P T% T'( C%55)TT((9S S(SS)%N
There are many ways in which civil society organi9ations, either separately or in partnership
with the authorities, can follow up on the +ommittee0s concluding observations and
recommendations. =or example, they may:
11*
5ssue a press release to raise awareness of the concluding observations and
recommendations
+ontinue the coalition that drafted the alternative report, meet and strategi9e on ways
to move forward on the concluding observations
Meet staff in the relevant ministries to ensure that a wor1plan for the implementation
of the concluding observations is developed
Meet parliamentarians to raise awareness of specific recommendations that re2uire
law and policy reform
Meet the United Nations country team to encourage United Nations agencies to
advocate implementation of the concluding observations and to align programming
with the +ommittee0s recommendations
old a national conference to raise awareness of the concluding observations
old wor1shops on specific issues
5dentify recommendations that civil society could assist in implementing
=ollow implementation of recommendations over time to maintain focus
!eport on implementation to the +ommittee as well as to other international
processes such as the universal periodic review.
11,
5%D&6( H
T'( %PT)%N#6 PR%T%C%6
)ntrodu*tion
This module sets out the basic parameters of the two procedures under the -ptional
#rotocol to the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities: communications and
in2uiries. 5t explains the steps involved in each procedure and identifies some of the benefits
of the -ptional #rotocol as a means of strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities.
The Co//ittee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
)rticle CK of the +onvention establishes a +ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with
,isabilities, an international committee of independent experts with several functions 4the
+ommittee6. 5ts members are elected during the +onference of States #arties, which ta1es
place in New Gor1. Unli1e the +onferences of States #arties of other human rights treaties,
that of the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities also holds substantive
discussions on issues related to the +onvention0s implementation.
State parties elect the experts by secret ballot on the basis of candidatures put forward by
the State parties themselves. The State parties elect the expert members on the basis of
their competence and experience in the field of human rights and disability, and also in
consideration of e2uitable geographic representation, representation of different forms of
civili9ation and legal systems, gender balance, and participation of experts with disabilities.
The experts serve in their personal capacity: they do not represent the State that put forward
their candidature or that elected them. They are independent.
The Co//ittee9s duties under the Convention
Fy becoming parties to the +onvention, States commit to providing the +ommittee with
2eriodi* re2orts on the steps they have ta1en to implement it 4art. C/6. State parties shall
submit their initial reports within two years of the +onvention0s entry into force for them and
subse2uent reports at least every four years thereafter and further whenever the +ommittee
re2uests them to do so.
The +ommittee engages in a *onstru*tive dialogue with State parties and issues
concluding observations and recommendations for follow7up action to improve and
strengthen the +onvention0s implementation. -ther interested parties, such as national
human rights institutions and civil society organi9ations, can also be part of this dialogue.
,#-s for example can submit alternative reports to the +ommittee. )lternative reports can
be very valuable, as they provide a civil society perspective on implementation and thus give
the +ommittee a fuller view of the status of the +onvention0s implementation.
The +ommittee may also hold da1s of general dis*ussion, open to the public, during
which it discusses issues of general interest arising from the +onvention. The +ommittee
has already held days of discussion on legal capacity and accessibility.
The +ommittee issues general *o//ents on specific provisions in the +onvention or on
specific issues. These are authoritative statements that clarify issues arising from the
implementation of the +onvention. *eneral comments have been particularly important in
the context of other treaty bodies, as they provide a summary guide for the implementation
119
of specific treaty provisions. =or example, the general comments of the +ommittee on
8conomic, Social and +ultural !ights have had a significant impact at the national level,
fleshing out the +ovenant0s provisions, which are 2uite general. National courts in several
Burisdictions on different continents have referred to these general comments as a means of
applying the +ovenant to individual cases.
The Co//ittee9s duties under the %2tional Proto*ol
The -ptional #rotocol is a separate international legal instrument attached to the +onvention
on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities 4+onvention6. 5t was adopted together with the
+onvention on $C ,ecember '((.. The -ptional #rotocol is subBect to separate ratification
or accession. 5n order to become a party to the -ptional #rotocol, a State already needs to
be a State party to the +onvention. !eservations to the -ptional #rotocol are permitted so
long as they are not incompatible with the obBect and purpose of the +onvention and the
#rotocol.
The #rotocol is optional in the sense that States are not obliged to ratify it. owever, the
right to remedy or redress is fundamental for the full enBoyment of all rights, as recogni9ed,
for instance, in the 5nternational +ovenant on +ivil and #olitical !ights and in the +onvention
on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities. 5t applies to persons with disabilities as it does to
anyone else. Treaty bodies always recommend the ratification of optional protocols to
ensure the comprehensive protection of rights.
Fy becoming parties to the -ptional #rotocol, States recogni9e the competence of the
+ommittee to receive complaints from individuals 41nown as communications6 alleging
violations of any of the provisions of the +onvention. The -ptional #rotocol 4art. .6 also
provides the +ommittee with the opportunity to underta1e in2uiries if it receives reliable
information indicating grave or systematic violations of the +onvention in a particular State
party. States can opt out of the in2uiry procedure by ma1ing a declaration to this effect at the
time of signing or ratifying the -ptional #rotocol 4art. ?6.
$asi* infor/ation on the *o//uni*ations 2ro*edure
The procedure for individual communications set out in the -ptional #rotocol is similar to
that under other international human rights treaties. 5t allows individuals and groups of
individuals claiming be have suffered violations of any of the provisions of the +onvention to
present complaints before the +ommittee. 5t is worth pointing out from the outset some basic
information on what the -ptional #rotocol is and what it is not so as to avoid confusion.
The communications procedure is what is 1nown as a 2uasi7Budicial procedure. 5n many
ways the procedure parallels Budicial consideration of complaints but there are also some
important differences:
The procedure is in writing and there is no oral hearing as in court cases. The parties
are not represented before the +ommittee by lawyers, nor is it necessary for the
parties to come to the +ommittee. 8verything is done in writing, through
correspondence.
The +ommittee0s experts are independent experts but they are not Budges.
The +ommittee offers views and recommendations on communications but unli1e a
court decision these are not legally enforceable. Their implementation will depend on
the political will of the State party and the pressure brought to bear through various
actors at the national level. The +ommittee cannot compel implementation.
120
5t is also interesting to note that there have already been many communications sent to the
+ommittee. owever, most of these have not been registered as they do not meet even the
basic re2uirements for admissibility 4for example, many communications have been brought
against the United States, which is not a party to either the +onvention or its -ptional
#rotocol6.
The *o//uni*ation 2ro*edure@ fro/ *o/2laint to resolution
The overall procedure is as follows:
5ndividuals can complain to the +ommittee if they believe that they have been treated
contrary to any of the articles of the +onvention. The complaint is sent to the petitions
team of -+!, +7$'$$ *eneva $(, tb7petitionsWohchr.org or by fax 4for urgent
matters6 XK$ '' %$J %( ''.
The communication is registered. 5n order to be registered, the communication must
meet the basic re2uirements for admissibility, such as identification of the State as a
State party to the -ptional #rotocol. -therwise, the communication is not registered
or the petitions team may re2uest additional information.
)ny communication received is then brought to the attention of the State party
concerned.
The State party may submit written explanations within six months, clarifying the
matter and outlining possible remedies that may have been ta1en.
The +ommittee should transmit the information provided by the parties to the other
parties and shall afford each party the opportunity to comment on submissions within
fixed time limits.
5f necessary, the +ommittee may order interim measures to prevent any irreparable
damage occurring to the individual or group. owever, this does not imply that the
+ommittee believes the communication is either admissible or founded. The
+ommittee could order interim measures but then decide that the communication
inadmissible and ta1e no further action.
The +ommittee will consider whether the communication is admissible.
5f the communication is admissible, the +ommittee will consider the merits of the
communication. 5n other words, it will assess whether there has been a violation of
the +onvention or not. 5f the communication is inadmissible, the parties are informed
and that is the end of the matter.
-ther committees decide on admissibility and on the merits together as this can save
time. The +ommittee on the !ights on #ersons with ,isabilities has not yet
developed a practice in this regard.
)fter examining the communication, the +ommittee will forward its views and
recommendations, if any, to the State party and the petitioner.
The views on admissibility and the merits are made public.
5f the +ommittee ma1es a finding of a violation, it will follow up on action ta1en by the
State, for example, through future periodic reports.
The +ommittee has not yet decided any case on the merits. owever, communications
related to the rights of persons with disabilities have been considered by regional human
rights mechanisms as well as by other United Nations human rights treaty bodies, such as
the uman !ights +ommittee. ere are two examples: one from the +ouncil of 8urope0s
+ommittee of Social !ights and another from the uman !ights +ommittee:
(uro2ean Co//ittee of So*ial Rights
$utism )urope v. *rance Co/2laint No. 10B!""!
121
$. 0acts: )ccording to State legislation, people with autism were able to attend
mainstream schools, either individually 4individual mainstreaming6 in ordinary classes
with the assistance of special auxiliary staff, or as part of a group 4collective
mainstreaming6 through school integration classes 4primary level6 or educational
integration units 4secondary level6. #eople who, due to the severity of their autism, were
unable to integrate into the ordinary school system, were able to receive special
education in a speciali9ed institution. 5ndividual mainstreaming was financed through the
general education budget, while collective mainstreaming was financed through the
sic1ness7insurance benefit. )utism78urope argued that the State did not, in practice,
ma1e sufficient provision for the education of children and adults with autism due to
identifiable shortfalls3both 2uantitative and 2ualitative3in the provision of both
mainstream education as well as so7called special education.
'. +laim: )utism78urope claimed that the failure to ta1e the necessary steps to ensure
the right to education of children and adults with autism resulted in violations of the right
of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the
life of the community, the right of children and young persons to social, legal and
economic protection and the prohibition on discrimination.
C. ,ecision: The +ommittee recalled that the implementation of the 8uropean Social
+harter re2uired State parties to ta1e not merely legal action but also practical action to
give full effect to the rights recogni9ed in the +harter. @hen the achievement of one of
the rights in 2uestion was exceptionally complex and particularly expensive to resolve, a
State party had to ta1e measures that allowed it to achieve the obBectives of the +harter
within a reasonable time, with measurable progress and to an extent consistent with the
maximum use of available resources. 5n doing so, States should be mindful of the
impact that choices of measures might have on groups with heightened vulnerabilities
as well as for others affected, especially the families of vulnerable people. 5n the light of
the facts of the case, the +ommittee noted that the State continued to use a more
restrictive definition of autism than that adopted by the @orld ealth -rgani9ation and
that there were still insufficient official statistics that would rationally measure progress
through time. =urther, the proportion of children with autism being educated in either
general or specialist schools was much lower than that of other children3whether
disabled or not3and there was a chronic shortage of care and support facilities for
autistic adults. =or these reasons, the State had failed to achieve sufficient progress in
advancing the provision of education for people with autism. The +ommittee also noted
that establishments speciali9ing in the education and care of disabled children,
particularly those with autism, were not in general financed from the same budget as
normal schools< however, this did not amount to discrimination as it was for the States
themselves to decide the modalities of funding.
K. 0inding: The +ommittee stated that the State did not conform with the +harter.
'u/an Rights Co//ittee
+,-, v. -ermany *o//uni*ation No. 1AH!B!""D
$. 0acts: Three members of the author0s family filed lawsuits against the author in family
law and civil matters. The author made fre2uent and voluminous submissions in court
proceeding and appealed every single decision that she considered disadvantageous.
The members of her family sought an order compelling her to desist from ma1ing certain
statements and see1ing pecuniary damages. The court, without hearing or seeing the
author in person, ordered a medical examination of the author to assess whether she
was capable of ta1ing part in the legal proceedings. The court reasoned that the
behaviour of the author in the proceedings, including her many very voluminous
submissions to the court, raised doubts as to her capacity to ta1e part in proceedings.
The author challenged the court0s decision re2uiring a medical examination, claiming that
there were no obBective reasons for ordering the examination and challenging the
absence of an oral hearing prior to issuing the order. aving lost that challenge, she too1
122
her challenge to two higher courts, including the =ederal +onstitutional +ourt, both of
which reBected it.
'. +laim: The author claimed to be victim of violations of articles J 4freedom from torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment6, $J 4right to privacy6 and $K 4$6 4right to a fair
trial6 of the 5nternational +ovenant on +ivil and #olitical !ights. 5n relation to article J,
she argued that re2uiring the medical treatment was DdegradingE as it would cause
feelings of fear or anguish and inferiority capable of debasing the victim. 5n relation to
article $J, she argued that involuntary medical examination would interfere with her
privacy and integrity, arguing that only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling
reasons may a person be subBected to medical or psychiatric examinations without
explicit consent. =inally, in relation to article $K 4$6, she argued that the refusal of the
court to hear or see here in person prior to ordering her medical examination violated her
right to a fair trial as an oral hearing is an essential element of the due process
guarantees.
C. The State party<s submissions on admissibility and on the merits: The State challenged
the admissibility of the communication, arguing that it constituted an abuse of the right of
submission on various grounds, including the fact that she did not disclose that the order
of the court to determine her capacity concerned only proceedings against members of
her family and not her legal capacity in other respects. 5n relation to the merits of the
case, the State considered the claim to be Dmanifestly ill7foundedE. The State argued that
the author was not compelled to undergo the examination as she could refuse to see the
expert, in which case the opinion would be prepared on the basis of the files. Moreover,
the State said that the author would have had the occasion to be heard by the court
when the court came around to evaluating the expert opinion< however, that stage had
not been reached in the proceedings.
K. ,ecision: The +ommittee considered admissibility and the merits together. -n
admissibility, the +ommittee found that the author had failed to substantiate that the
invitation to undergo an expert examination by itself failed to raise issues related to
article J so this part of the submission was inadmissible. Similarly, the +ommittee found
that the author had not sufficiently substantiated the claim in relation to article $K 4$6. 5n
relation to article $J, the +ommittee found that the author had substantiated these claims
for purposes of admissibility and the State had not challenged this.
/. 0inding: The +ommittee found that to order a person to undergo medical treatment or
examination without the consent or against the will of that person constitutes interference
with privacy, and may amount to an unlawful attac1 on his or her honour and reputation.
=or such an interference to be permissible, it must meet certain conditions, i.e., it must
be provided for by law, be in accordance with the provisions, aims and obBectives of the
+ovenant and be reasonable under the circumstances. The +ommittee found the court0s
actions not to be reasonable, as the author would either have to undergo the
examination or, alternatively, the expert would prepare the opinion on the basis of the file
without the author being heard e. 5t found a violation of article $J in conBunction with
article $K 4$6. The +ommittee noted the State was under an obligation to provide the
author with an effective remedy and to prevent similar violations in the future. The
+ommittee re2uested information about measures ta1en to follow up on its views within
$?( days. The +ommittee also re2uested the State to publish the +ommittee0s views.
5t is interesting to review these two cases, which precede the +onvention, in the light of the
+onvention0s norms and standards. 5n particular, the second case raises particularly
complicated issues. 5mportantly, the court0s actions, calling into 2uestion the legal capacity of
the author, would be 2uestionable under the +onvention for failing to respect legal capacity
on an e2ual basis with others 4using mental disability as a possible distinction for denying
her legal capacity in relation to the case6. ow would this case have been decided by the
+ommittee on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities under the -ptional #rotocol to the
+onventionA
12(
Che*klist for sub/itting a *o//uni*ation
The +ommittee has provided helpful guidance on the issues that must be reflected in a
communication for it to be registered 4+!#,"+"/"C"!ev.$6. These are produced in the box
below:
12%
Guidelines for sub/ission of *o//uni*ations to the Co//ittee on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities under the %2tional Proto*ol to the
Convention
1. )nfor/ation *on*erning the author+s, of the *o//uni*ation
=amily name
=irst name4s6
,ate and place of birth
Nationality"citi9enship
Sex
-ther relevant personal identification data 4if any of the above details are not
available6
#resent address
#ostal address for confidential correspondence 4if other than present address6
Telephone or mobile number 4if any6
87mail address 4if any6
=ax number 4if any6
5f you are submitting the communication on behalf of the alleged victim4s6, please
provide evidence showing the consent of the victim4s6, or reasons that Bustify
submitting the communication without such consent
!. )nfor/ation *on*erning the alleged vi*ti/+s,
=amily name
=irst name4s6
,ate and place of birth
Nationality"citi9enship
Sex
5f you consider it appropriate, please indicate whether the alleged victim4s6 has a
disability and, if so, the nature of that disability
-ther relevant personal identification data 4if any of the above details are not
available6
#resent address
#ostal address for confidential correspondence 4if other than present address6
Telephone or mobile number 4if any6
87mail address 4if any6
=ax number 4if any6
5f the communication concerns a group of individuals claiming to be victims, please
provide basic information about each individual, in line with the above list
0. )nfor/ation on the State 2art1 *on*erned
12)
)ll ten points are important. 5t is relevant to draw attention to some specific issues:
"ho can apply#
)ny individual under the Burisdiction of a State party that has accepted the competence of
the +ommittee can submit a communication to the +ommittee0s secretariat. 5n addition,
groups of individuals can also submit communications. 5n other words, two or more
individuals can Boin together and send a communication to the +ommittee claiming a breach
of their rights.
=urthermore, a communication can be brought on behalf of an individual or group. That
means, for example, a family member, an N*- or a public interest law centre or other entity
could bring a communication on behalf of someone. The +ommittee0s rules of procedure
simply specify that communications may be submitted on behalf of an individual or a group
of individuals 4rule .%6. )s is clear from the information, an author submitting a
communication on behalf of alleged victim4s6 must provide evidence of the consent of the
victim4s6 4such as a power of attorney6, or reasons that Bustify submitting the communication
without such consent.
Against $hom#
The defendant State must have accepted the competence of the +ommittee by ratifying the
-ptional #rotocol.
"hat is the communication about#
The communication must include an allegation of a violation of any provision in the
+onvention. 5t is important to note that the communication can concern any DprovisionE. The
authors should ma1e sure that they clarify which provisions have allegedly been breached
and how that alleged breach has affected them.
12+
Ho$A
The communications procedure is a confidential written procedure< there are no oral
hearings. owever, the -ptional #rotocol does not rule out oral hearings and the +ommittee
could receive oral submissions, although this is unli1ely.
Re*eivabilit1 and ad/issibilit1
The -ptional #rotocol sets out strict admissibility criteria 4arts. $>'6, which must be met
before the +ommittee can decide on the merits. )rticle $ sets out the basic re2uirements
that a communication must meet for the +ommittee to receive and consider it. 5f these
re2uirements are clearly not met, the +ommittee0s secretariat cannot register the
communication and it does not even get to the admissibility stage. The +ommittee might
have to consider some of these criteria itself at the stage of admissibility, if they were not
clear at the registration stage. These criteria are set out here in 2uestion form:
5s the communication from an individual or a group of individualsA 5n other words,
does the author have standing to bring the communication under the -ptional
#rotocolA 5f not, the +ommittee will reBect it on formal grounds. =or instance, if an
author brings a complaint without demonstrating that it is on behalf of an individual or
a group of individuals3for example, without furnishing a power of attorney3then the
author will not have standing.
,oes the individual or group claim to be a victim of a violation of the +onventionA
This is the vi*ti/ re2uirement. The communication must identify an individual or a
group of individuals whose rights have suffered. 5t is not possible to bring a general
claim against a State, e.g., on behalf of the broader community for failure to fulfil its
obligations but without demonstrating that someone has been victim of this failure.
5s the claimant subBect to the State0s BurisdictionA There must be a connection
between the victim and the State party against which the allegation is made.
as the State ratified the -ptional #rotocolA 5f the State has not accepted the
+ommittee0s Burisdiction to receive and consider communications, the +ommittee
cannot consider any communication against that State.
)rticle ' sets out the re2uirements for admissibility. These apply to those communications
that are registered and that the +ommittee considers. )s noted above, the +ommittee could
decide that the communication does not meet the admissibility re2uirements after all and so
there is no need to consider its merits.
5s the alleged victim anonymousA 5f so, the +ommittee cannot admit the
communication. 5t should be noted that for all communications the identity of the
author can nevertheless remain confidential, if the author so re2uests.
as the communication come before another international procedure of investigation
or settlementA This criterion aims at ensuring that a given international or regional
body does not examine a communication if the same matter is being 4simultaneous
procedures6 or has already been 4successive procedures6 examined by another
international procedure.
)re domestic remedies exhaustedA The exhaustion of domestic remedies is an
important rule of law, which applies to other dispute mechanisms, too. 5ts purpose is
to give national authorities, generally courts, an opportunity to deal with allegations of
human rights violations first. 5ndeed, an important aim of communications procedures
12*
is to strengthen national human rights protection mechanisms, which are more easily
accessed and li1ely to provide 2uic1er and legally enforceable remedies to victims.
aving exhausted domestic remedies is a 1ey admissibility criterion under the
-ptional #rotocol. =or this reason, it is important for authors to include as much
information as possible in their submissions on how they have exhausted domestic
remedies. )s noted above, the submission can indicate the type of action ta1en, the
authority to which it was addressed, when the action was ta1en, the final decision
and so on. The +ommittee has also as1ed why domestic remedies were not
exhausted. 5ndeed, according to article ' 4d6, this re2uirement can be waived in some
cases: where the application of the remedy is unreasonably prolonged or unli1ely to
bring effective relief. This mirrors developments in other areas of international law.
=or example, the 8uropean +ourt of uman !ights re2uires domestic remedies to
have been exhausted where remedies are DavailableE and DeffectiveE. The inter7
)merican system has identified three exceptions to the rule: 4$6 the domestic
legislation of the State does not afford due process of law for this rule< 4'6 the party
alleging violation of rights has been denied access to remedies under domestic law
or has been prevented from exhausting them< 4C6 there has been unwarranted delay
in rendering a final Budgement under the aforementioned remedies.
5s the communication manifestly unfounded or unsubstantiatedA This allows the
+ommittee to exclude communications which are contrary to the obBects and
purposes of the +onvention.
,id the alleged conduct occur after the entry into force of the -ptional #rotocol for
the StateA The State cannot be held to account by the +ommittee for an action that
occurred prior to its acceptance of the communications procedure.
=ew communications are ever registered. )s of $% November '($', the +ommittee has
registered a total of nine individual communications in relation to seven State parties to the -ptional
#rotocol. -ut of these nine, one has already been examined by the +ommittee on the merits
4communication No. C"'($$, H9(9 v. S$eden6 and one has been found inadmissible 4communication
No. ."'($$, (cAlpine v. )nited :ingdom6.
$$

)nteri/ /easures
5n urgent situations, the +ommittee may, after receipt of the communication and before
adopting its views, re2uest a State party to ta1e certain interim measures to avoid
irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. 5nterim measures are designed to
respond to exceptional or life7threatening situations. =or example, in the vast maBority of
cases before the uman !ights +ommittee, interim measures have been used in cases
concerning the death penalty or deportation that ris1ed violating provisions relating to the
right to live and freedom from torture. 5f the +ommittee grants interim measures, the final
decision may confirm or revo1e them.
Consideration of the /erits and 2ubli*ation of the Co//ittee9s views and
re*o//endations
The +ommittee considers the merits either after or simultaneously with a communication0s
admissibility. Some treaty bodies consider accessibility and the merits at the same time,
while others consider one after the other. The advantage of considering accessibility and
merits together is that it saves time. The general process can be summari9ed as follows.
11
The +ommitteeYs views and decisions are available in full in all six official United Nations languages
from www.ohchr.org"8N"!Fodies"+!#,"#ages";urisprudence.aspx 4accessed $% November '($'6.
12,
The next stage is the +ommittee0s adoption of its decision or views on a communication.
This is done on the basis of the written information provided by the two parties and the
application of the +onvention to the facts as determined by the +ommittee. The +ommittee
then forwards its views and recommendations, if any, to the State party concerned and to
the petitioner. 5n there has been a violation, the +ommittee would normally re2uest the State
party to ta1e appropriate steps to remedy it. The practice of the +ommittee in this regard is
of course not yet developed. 5n the experience of other treaty bodies, these steps might be
limited to recommendations that a State party should provide an Dappropriate remedyE, or
they might be more specific, such as recommending the review of policies or the repeal of a
law, the payment of compensation or the prevention of future violations.
!ule J/ of the +ommittee0s rules of procedure sets out that, within six months of
transmission of its views, the State party must submit a written response with information on
any follow7up action. The +ommittee may then re2uest further information from the State
party and it may also re2uest the State party to include information in its periodic report to
the +ommittee.
5nterestingly, there is a focal point to follow up on the implementation of the +ommittee0s
views. The rule establishes that the +ommittee may appoint a special rapporteur or wor1ing
group to ascertain the measures ta1en by State parties to implement views and
recommendations. The special rapporteur or wor1ing group may ma1e contacts and ta1e
action as appropriate to follow up on views and can also recommend action to the
+ommittee. 5f the +ommittee and the State party agree, the special rapporteur or wor1ing
group can visit the country and report bac1 to the +ommittee.
The in7uir1
The second procedure established by the -ptional #rotocol is the in7uir1. 5t allows the
+ommittee to examine reliable information indicating grave or systematic violations of the
+onvention by a State party. State parties may opt out this procedure, through a declaration
and reservation, and still ratify the -ptional #rotocol 4art. ?6. States can decide to lift
reservations at a later date.
The main features of an in2uiry compared to a complaint are:
=irst, that to launch an in2uiry, the +ommittee does not have to receive a formal
complaint. 5t is up to the +ommittee to decide to initiate the procedure 4which may
include a visit to the State party, subBect to the latter0s consent6<
Second, an in2uiry is permitted only in cases indicating grave or systematic violations
of the rights set forth in the +onvention< and
Third, there is no re2uirement for a victim to come forward.
) grave violation refers to a severe abuse of one or more provisions of the +onvention, such
as discrimination that threatens someone0s life, integrity or personal security. ) systematic
violation refers to a pattern of abuse, the scale and fre2uency of which are significant
regardless of intention. The abuse may result from laws, policies or practices. The term
DsystematicE may include violations which might not be considered DgraveE.
129
The process is as follows:
Receipt of reliable information on grave or systematic violations: the +ommittee
receives information, which in the experience of other treaty bodies is generally
provided by N*-s although treaty bodies may on their own initiative compile
information available to it, including from United Nations bodies 4see rule J% of the
+ommittee0s rules of procedure6. )t this stage, the +ommittee should see1 further
information to establish that the information received is reliable.
'nvitation to State party to cooperate: if the +ommittee finds that the information is
reliable, it invites the State party to cooperate in the examination of the information,
including through the submission of information to the +ommittee.
,esignation of one or more +ommittee members to conduct the in-uiry: the
+ommittee considers the submission of the State party as well as any additional
information provided by governmental organi9ations, the United Nations system,
N*-s and individuals, and designates one or more members to conduct the in2uiry.
The +ommittee must see1 the cooperation of the State party at all stages if it decides
to proceed.
+ountry visit: where warranted, the +ommittee may conduct a visit to the territory
concerned, provided the State party agrees. Nisits may, again, with the consent of
the State party, including hearings. owever, a country visit is not mandatory and the
+ommittee may underta1e the in2uiry without it.
0indings. comments and recommendations submitted to State party: the +ommittee
must draft a report and transmit it to the State party confidentially.
2bservations from the State party to be transmitted $ithin si3 months: the State party
has six months to submit its observations to the +ommittee. 5t is worth noting that the
+ommittee on the 8limination of ,iscrimination against @omen can ma1e its final
report public. Neither the +onvention on the !ights of #ersons with ,isabilities nor
the +ommittee0s rules of procedure refers to such an option, which suggests it is
open.
'nvitation transmitted to State party to report on action taken: the +ommittee may
invite the State party to include in its periodic report details of any measures it has
ta1en to implement the findings. The +ommittee includes a summary of the
procedure in its annual report.
)s with the individual communications procedure, it could be helpful for participants to hear
about an in2uiry. Unfortunately, there are relatively few public in2uiry reports owing to the
confidential nature of the procedure. =acilitators might wish to discuss the +ommittee on the
8limination of ,iscrimination against @omen0s in2uiry into the abduction, rape and murder of
women in +uidad ;uZre9, Mexico 4+8,)@"+"'((/"-#.?"M8[5+-6.
$enefits of the %2tional Proto*ol

Foth procedurally and substantially, the -ptional #rotocol represents a potentially important
mechanism for protecting persons with disabilities and for strengthening national capacities.
1(0
There are benefits not only for victims of human rights violations but also for States. 5t is true
that, on first glance, States might have little enthusiasm for a complaints or in2uiries
procedure. Get, over half the States that have ratified the +onvention have also ratified its
-ptional #rotocol, because the -ptional #rotocol can also be helpful for them.
The -ptional #rotocol can be a means to strengthen national protection
mechanisms. 5f domestic remedies are prompt and effective, individuals are less
li1ely to need to petition the +ommittee once they have exhausted domestic
remedies.
The -ptional #rotocol can also provide a means to confirm State policy. Not all
communications are decided in favour of the alleged victim. The application of
international standards to specific individuals is not necessarily always clear, as their
situations do not always fit into neat compartments. ) State party may be convinced
it is meeting its obligations under the +onvention and a decision of the +ommittee in
relation to an individual communication or an in2uiry can confirm the State0s position.
5n the same vein, the -ptional #rotocol mandates the +ommittee to validate or 2uery
national court decisions. 5t will offer guidance to domestic courts and other human
rights protection mechanisms by developing further the substantive content of the
rights under the +onvention and related obligations of States. 5nternational case law
can also promote national Burisprudence.
The -ptional #rotocol can also help State parties bring about change. The uman
!ights +ommittee0s decision on Toonen v. Australia is a case in point. The uman
!ights +ommittee considered that legislation in the )ustralian State of Tasmania
concerning homosexuality was incompatible with the provisions of the 5nternational
+ovenant on +ivil and #olitical !ights. The =ederal *overnment in )ustralia then
used this decision to bring about law reform in the State.
The in2uiry procedure under the -ptional #rotocol can provide an opportunity to
benefit from international expertise to solve difficult or protracted problems. 5n
particular, country visits by the +ommittee0s members can help analyse problems
from a more obBective and independent perspective and provide solutions to
problems. -n the one hand, these experts can draw on the experience of other
countries. -n the other, the international and independent bac1ground of the experts
can ma1e the in2uiry less politically charged, e.g., because it is not lin1ed to the
*overnment or another political force in the country.
The -ptional #rotocol0s procedures also clarify how to apply the +onvention in
specific cases. Fy examining its application through the prism of an individual
complaint or in2uiry, the +ommittee may broaden and deepen its understanding of
the +onvention and its meaning and so refine its recommendations to States 4all
States, not only the defendant State6 and clarify the steps they need to ta1e.
The procedures help to incorporate the +onvention into domestic law. The
+ommittee0s views and recommendations could trigger for law reform as a step in
bringing State practice into line with the +onvention.
The -ptional #rotocol provides a mechanism for strategic litigation by civil society to
support 1ey changes. Hitigation can be costly and the outcomes are invariably
uncertain. Hitigation is therefore not always the preferred option. owever, it can be
helpful in certain cases, one of these being strategic litigation. +ivil society
organi9ations and public interest advocates can use litigation as a strategic tool in
various ways. =or example, litigants can bring a test case as a means of clarifying
the law. The law is then clarified not only for the litigants in the particular case, but
also for others facing similar situations. Fringing one such case and clarifying the law
can prevent many problems 4and more litigation6 in the future. 5n this way,
organi9ations can use the -ptional #rotocol as a means of engaging the views of the
+ommittee on 1ey issues in domestic implementation or interpretation of the
+onvention.
1(1
The -ptional #rotocol can protect victims and potential victims. )s an international
accountability mechanism for addressing violations of the rights under the
+onvention, 5t can provide alleged victims with interim measures if the situation is
critical and their rights are seriously under threat.
The complaints procedure is relatively easy to use for victims. There is no time limit
for bringing complaints 4apart from the re2uirement that the alleged violation should
not have occurred prior to the entry into force of the -ptional #rotocol for the State
party6 and the procedure can be relatively fast and simple, although much depends
on the capacity of the +ommittee. There is no re2uirement to have legal
representation and decisions are made in writing.
The role of States *ivil so*iet1 and &nited Nations *ountr1 tea/s
)ll three can play a role in promoting the -ptional #rotocol and can benefit from it. 5n
particular, States can:
Ratify the 2ptional Protocol9 +learly, States should consider ratifying the -ptional
#rotocol.
Strengthen implementation9 !atifying the -ptional #rotocol exposes States to
individual complaints and in2uiries. This can deter them from not complying with the
+onvention. Niews on communications and in2uiries can also indicate the steps that
a State should ta1e to comply.
Strengthen domestic remedies9 The fact that alleged victims can appeal to the
+ommittee can act as a trigger for strengthening domestic remedies 4e.g., ensuring
that all rights are Busticiable at the national level6 so that cases do not need to go to
the +ommittee in the first place.
Provide timely information to the +ommittee9 States should participate actively in the
communication and in2uiry processes by providing up7to7date and accurate
information so that the +ommittee can act with full 1nowledge of the facts.
0ollo$ up on recommendations9 States should ensure that they follow up on
recommendations to provide a remedy to victims, but also to ensure that the treaty
body system is respected and is effective. 5t was, after all, created by States, so
States have an interest in ensuring that it wor1s.
,isseminate the +ommittee<s vie$s9 States should, at the very least, publish its
views on individual communications relating to individuals under their Burisdiction.
States should also consider publishing the results of in2uiries under the -ptional
#rotocol as this will trigger national debate, which in turn should help the
implementation of recommendations and ultimately improve the enBoyment of rights.
Report on follo$4up9 States should ensure that they conscientiously report on follow7
up to recommendations in subse2uent periodic reports to the +ommittee.
+ivil society and ,#-s have a crucial role in strengthening the national implementation of
the +onvention through promoting the ratification of the -ptional #rotocol and advocating
the implementation of the +ommittee0s recommendations. 5n particular, civil society can:
Promote ratification of the 2ptional Protocol9 -rgani9ations of persons with
disabilities and civil society organi9ations have an important role in encouraging
States to ratify treaties, including optional protocols. 5t is often through such lobbying
that States ta1e the decision to ratify. 5n promoting ratification, ,#-s and civil society
organi9ations can also advocate acceptance of the in2uiry procedure 4i.e., no
declaration to the contrary upon either signature or ratification6.
1(2
Assist individuals in bringing complaints9 -rgani9ations of persons with disabilities
and civil society can play an important role in creating awareness about the
communication and in2uiry procedures, and provide victims with the 1nowledge and
often the resources to file a complaint.
Submit communications9 -rgani9ations of persons with disabilities can act on behalf
of victims. )t times, persons with disabilities who are victims of violations are denied
legal capacity, lac1 education, live in poverty and so on. 5n such circumstances, the
role of ,#-s is even more important. )s noted above, normally a ,#- will have to
demonstrate that it has the consent of the victim on whose behalf it is acting.
'nform in-uiries9 @hen violations are grave or systematic, it is often ,#-s that have
the broad7ranging information available to spot the patterns and provide the
+ommittee with the information it needs.
+an monitor compliance by State parties $ith recommendations9 -rgani9ations of
persons with disabilities can be the eyes and ears of monitoring. They can witness
changes 4or lac1 of action6 following the +ommittee0s recommendations. 5f nothing is
done, they can communicate this to the +ommittee 4through communications or
alternative reports6.
,isseminate /urisprudence9 -rgani9ations of persons with disabilities can
disseminate decisions ta1en by domestic courts to satisfy the rights of victims as well
as the +ommittee0s recommendations and observations related to communications
and in2uiries.
Report on follo$4up9 +ivil society organi9ations preparing alternative reports to the
+ommittee should consider including information on follow7up to views and
recommendations under the -ptional #rotocol.
United Nations country teams 4UNT+s6 can support ratification of the -ptional #rotocol and
also implementation of the +ommittee0s suggestions and recommendations relating to
individual communications and in2uiries. 5n particular, UNT+s can:
Promote ratification9 The United Nations country teams can use advocacy with
partner ministries to encourage ratification of the -ptional #rotocol. -ne way would
be for UN+Ts to collect recommendations of other human rights bodies encouraging
ratification of the -ptional #rotocol and use this in discussions with their *overnment
counterparts. 5t is li1ely that the +ommittee 4similar to other treaty bodies6 will
recommend ratification of the -ptional #rotocol in its regular reviews of State party
reports. Similarly, the universal periodic review of the uman !ights +ouncil, the
special procedures during country missions or the igh +ommissioner and even
regional human rights bodies will recommend that specific States should ratify the
-ptional #rotocol. United Nations country teams can draw on these
recommendations to promote ratification.
+ollect information on domestic case la$ and e3perience $ith optional protocols of
other treaties9 5n countries where domestic courts or N!5s have already dealt with
complaints in relation to disabilities, States might be more willing to accept the
Busticiability of the +onvention0s rights. United Nations country teams can collect and
analyse information on such experience to demonstrate how Budicial and 2uasi7
Budicial procedures can improve the reali9ation of human rights, including the rights of
persons with disabilities.
Raise a$areness and train relevant actors. such as Budges, law students, civil
servants and ,#-s"civil society organi9ations so that they are aware of the -ptional
#rotocol and its relevance to their wor1 so that they can support and advocate
ratification. 5f the +ommittee has issued recommendations related to a
communication or in2uiry, training can help these actors identify ways to promote
implementation. )lternatively, the UN+T could issue a press release on the
1((
anniversary of the entering into force of the two instruments 4C May6 or the
anniversary of ratification of the +onvention by the State to encourage the State party
to ratify the -ptional #rotocol. @hen the +ommittee issues suggestions and
recommendations related to an in2uiry or communication, the UN+T can encourage
the *overnment to issue a press release or consider issuing a press release itself.
Provide reliable information to the +ommittee9 The United Nations country team can
use the in2uiry mechanism as a means of highlighting a country situation which might
be too sensitive for the UN+T to do itself. 5n this way, the UN+T can rely on the
+ommittee to underta1e an independent investigation so that the issue is dealt with
ade2uately, without the UN+T being placed in a difficult position vis7U7vis the
*overnment.
Assist $ith follo$4up9 ,epending on the nature of the views and recommendations
and the 1nowledge and experience in the UN+T, it could help the State party
implement the +ommittee0s views and recommendations. This could be particularly
relevant for in2uiries where the views and recommendations are li1ely to be
comprehensive, covering a range of different interrelated issues concerning
implementation 4as opposed to views on a communication, which might simply be
about providing compensation to an individual victim6.
,isseminate the +ommittee<s vie$s and recommendations9 The United Nations
country team could publish the +ommittee0s views and recommendations on its
website and also issue a press release when decisions are published.
Report on follo$4up9 The United Nations country team can also provide information to
the +ommittee, either publicly or confidentially, when a State party presents its
periodic report. 5t can provide the +ommittee with invaluable information on follow7up
to its views and recommendations under the -ptional #rotocol. 5n this way, the
+ommittee has information from a trusted source.
1(%