FINAL
AND APPROVED VERSION OF THE REPORT OF THE 8TH SESSION OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE
TASKED WITH DEVELPONG A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRAL CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION
AND PROMOTION OF THE RIGHTS AND DIGNITY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
SEPTEMBER 2006
1. PURPOSE
To report on the proceedings of the eight session of the Ad Hoc Committee
tasked with developing a Comprehensive and Integral Convention on the Protection
and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities held from
14 August 2006 to 25 August 2006 in New York at the United Nations
Headquarters.
2. SUMMARY
The eight session of the Ad Hoc Committee was a continuation of a process initiated
by the General Assembly to develop a Comprehensive and Integral Convention on
the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with
Disabilities. The base document used during this session was compiled by the
Chairman, Ambassador Mackay of New Zealand, based on the outcomes of the
discussions of the seventh session. This text narrowed down divergent views and
captured the essential conceptual and consensual elements. The purpose of this
current session was to find consensus on the controversial issues, also
referred to as the bracketed text, as well as the provisions on International
Monitoring, the final-clauses and adopt the draft convention as per General
Assembly resolution
3. BACKGROUND
The meeting was a follow up on the previous seven sessions of the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Comprehensive and Integral Convention on the Promotion and
Protection of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. The seventh
session of the Ad Hoc Committee was held in February 2006 and discussions were
based on the Chairman's text compiled on the basis of discussions during the
previous sessions.
Ambassador Don Mackay of New Zealand continued to chair the Ad Hoc Committee
and facilitate the informal sessions in the plenary, having assumed these
duties at the sixth session. His Chairmanship assured continuity in the
negotiations of all aspects of the draft most importantly the controversial
articles. Ambassador Mackay continued with the proven formula of alternating
between formal and informal sessions during the discussions on individual
articles thereby providing civil society with an opportunity to present their
views on these articles.
This session was differently run because it was punctuated by long
informal-informal direct consultation between different delegations outside the
framework of the plenary. This was meant to facilitate compromises on different
proposals that were made at the session and on language that was not agreed
from previous sessions.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1. Composition of the Delegation
The South African delegation consisted of the following officials:
Benny Palime OSDP,
Presidency
Joanna Doorasamy OSDP,
Presidency
Ria Mathivha OSDP,
Presidency
Marie Hendricks OSDP,
Western Cape Premiers Office
Ghalieb Essop Western Cape Youth Commissioner
Selaelo Makgato OSDP,
Limpopo Premiers Office
Anthony Miyeni Dept of Foreign
Affairs
Steven Mathate Dept of Foreign
Affairs
Fiyola Hoosen SA Mission to the
UN
Lakela Kaunda Dept of Social
Development
Manthipi Moloamu Dept of Social
Development
Sophie Mkhasibe Dept of Social
Development
Winston Baatjies Dept of Health
Chris Williams-Wynn Dept of Land Affairs
Shuaib Chalklen Advisor
Antina Hlabela Dept of Defence
Linda Pienaar South African
Police Service (SAPS)
Masentle Nkabinde SAPS
Petronella Linders Dept of
Communications
Wendy Jacobie Dept of
Communications (PA of PL)
Mxolisi Mvimbi Dept of
Communications
Zazi Ndebele Dept of
Communications (Sign Language interpreter)
4.2. General Observations
The Chairman informed the meeting of a general expectation that the work of the
Ad Hoc Committee would conclude its work by the end of the allocated two weeks.
In order to meet this expectation, he indicated that he would use the first
week to attend to the outstanding matters such as the articles on international
monitoring, definitions and the language in square brackets.
However, there was very little progress made on the bracketed language during
the first week. The Chairman requested delegations to consult intensively,
amongst themselves, on bracketed language, with the view of reaching consensus
in order to minimise lengthy debates when these matters came before the formal
plenary.
With regard to procedural matters, the Chairman urged the delegates not to
'introduce new substantive elements to the working text because all possible
formulations of the text had been negotiated extensively in the past. He also
encouraged delegates to desist from opening up discussion on the previously
agreed language.
However, he agreed to compile and distribute new proposals on previously agreed
language. The Chairman allowed, in plenary, originating delegates to introduce
their proposed changes to the plenary and thereafter, he requested opposing
state parties to indicate their objection to the proposal by raising their
flags.
The proposer and objecting parties were then requested to engage in direct
negotiations with the express purpose of achieving consensus. In cases of
overwhelming opposition to new proposals, originating states were encouraged to
withdraw their proposals. This avoided discussions on new proposals. As a
result, the second week of the meeting was characterized by long and extensive
informal-informal delegation to delegation consultations.
The Chairman encouraged delegates not to be overly concerned with drafting
technicalities because a drafting committee would be appointed to craft the
final draft convention before presentation to the General Assembly for
adoption. The Chairman further indicated that in order to facilitate the
discussions on International Monitoring Mechanism, the delegation of Mexico had
been convening inter-sessional open ended informal discussions on the draft
text in New York. He indicated that this process would be ongoing throughout
the first week and expressed hope that this would facilitate consensus. During
the discussion on a definition of disability the Chairman appointed Jordan and
South Korea to co-facilitate informal negotiations on the definition of
disability.
4.3 Bureau and Africa Group
'The Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee on Disabilities comprised of the
Chairperson from New Zealand, members of the Secretariat and representatives
from the different regional groups i.e. Costa Rica on behalf of GRULAC, Czech Republic
on behalf of Eastern European Group, South Africa on behalf of the Africa Group
and Jordan on behalf of the Asia Group.
The Bureau met daily during the session and discussed the organisation of work,
the programme of work, the remaining substantive issues, procedural matters and
the adoption of the report as well as all matters related to progress in
negotiations. With regard to the substantive issues, the Chairperson indicated
the necessity to have informal consultations on the International Monitoring
Mechanism and on the Final Clauses. Further to this, there was an indication
that there may have to be consultations on the articles pertaining to
international co-operation, the family and health.
The Bureau outlined and discussed the procedure that would be followed, pending
the successful outcome of the Ad Hoc Committee session. In this regard, it
should be noted that there will be a Drafting Committee to finalise the Draft
Convention for adoption and thereafter a resumed session of the Ad Hoc Committee
to officially adopt the Final Report and its Annexure (Draft Convention). The
resumed session would also have to adopt a resolution requesting the 6151
session of the General Assembly to adopt the Draft Convention.
It should be noted that members of the Bureau played an active role in
facilitating the informal discussions and negotiations and assisting all
delegations in order to ensure a successful outcome of the Session.
The participation of the Africa Group during the Ad Hoc Committee 'meeting was
constructive and successful. The Africa Group did not have a common position on
the entire text of the draft convention but only on certain articles of the
convention. The articles where the Africa Group had a common position were as
follows:
·
Article 4 on General Obligations facilitated by Senegal on behalf of the
Group
·
Article 5 on Equality and Non-Discrimination facilitated by Ghana on
behalf of the Group
·
Article 12 on Equal Recognition as a Person before the Law facilitated by
Kenya on behalf of the Group
·
Article 9 on Accessibility facilitated by South Africa on behalf of the
Group
·
Article 32 on International Co-operation facilitated by Tanzania on
behalf of the Group
·
Article 33 on National Implementation and Monitoring facilitated by
Algeria on behalf of the Group
The
Africa Group was instrumental in inserting the language on Article 32 on
International Co-operation and the position of the Group prevailed during the negotiations
of this article. International Co-operation was a key issue for developing
countries and in this regard the Africa Group played a significant role
ensuring the concerns of developing countries were addressed.
4.3 Overview Report on the Negotiations.
4.3.1. Articles negotiated for the first time
A. International Monitoring Mechanism
The inter-sessional negotiations on the International Monitoring 'Mechanism
under the facilitation of Mexico started on 17 April 2006 at the United Nations
headquarters in New York. On 14 August 2006, at the start of the eighth session
of the Ad Hoc Committee, the facilitator of the International Monitoring
Mechanism made a presentation on work that has been done inter-sessionally on
the above mentioned mechanism. The facilitator informed the plenary that there
had been two readings on the implementation mechanism that resulted in the
production of two revised documents. He indicated that he needed more time to
hold more consultations on the fringes of the plenary with all interested
delegates to develop consensus on the matter.
The Chairman of the plenary, with the consent of the delegates, agreed that
parallel negotiations on the International Monitoring Mechanism should take
place during lunch breaks and or after the plenary in the evenings. Three
evening and one lunch time sessions were held during the first week. These
sessions were augmented by additional consultations, which were held at the
Korean Mission on 20 August 2006 from 16H0 to 19H00.
Negotiations during the first week were useful because they served to introduce
delegates from capitals to the discussion document which was already under
discussion in New York and familiarised them with different points of view of
various delegations. These discussions also helped to develop points of
convergence on the text while isolating controversial language that needed
extensive engagement.
During the second week, the breakaway group on the International Monitoring
Mechanism held three late night meetings and one lunch-time meeting. The group
experienced a few "cliff-hanger moments" during these meetings.
It became clear that two camps had developed divergent positions on various
issues which seemed irreconcilable. The two camps consisted of the Like Minded
Group (LMG) which included the following countries Egypt, Morocco, Singapore,
Sudan, Syria, Qatar, Yemen, 'Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Russia, Vietnam, and
Venezuela, led by China. The second camp consisted of ED countries led by
Finland.
The most contentious issue was the placement of articles relating to individual
communications, enquiry procedures and country visits. The LMG proposed that
these articles should be deleted completely from the draft convention. Their
un-stated reason for the deletion was that these articles would be used to
target them to account for human rights practices in their countries.
The ED supported by countries like South Africa, Costa Rico, Kenya etc. were
opposed the deletion of these articles. The LMG proposed that the said articles
be negotiated in an optional protocol format. The ED held back its opposition
to both deletion and optional protocol route.
The ED needed assurance that the LMG was not going to delete these articles and
there after hold back on agreeing on substance beyond the scheduled dates of
the eighth session. Liechtenstein engaged in confidence building shuttle
diplomacy between the two groups.
It was finally agreed that the substance of the three articles would be
discussed under an optional protocol format and that these articles would be
deleted from the draft convention when consensus is reached on substance. The
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDA W) was used
as a base document for negotiating the articles on individual communications,
enquiry procedure and country visits.
A separate article on country visits that would have facilitated the
possibility of countries to invite the Committee to conduct visits at the
interested country's request was deleted because of vehement opposition from
the LMG. Costa Rica insisted on the retention of the article in the text of the
Protocol but conceded to its deletion after the Chairman's intervention. South
Africa's position is that it would not have made much difference because it had
on previous occasions issued an open invitation to all UN mandate holders to
visit South Africa. Consensus was reached on most of the articles after the
Chairman suggested that the two camps consult 'informally.
Article 34 - Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
With regard to the size of the Committee it was agreed that there would be
initial 12 members and a subsequent increase of 6 members after additional
ratifications by 60 members when the Convention enters into force. A compromise
was reached regarding reference to states consulting civil society about
nominating candidates to the Committee. It was agreed that reference to Article
4.3 of the current draft convention would sufficiently cater for this
situation. It is understood that "emoluments to the Committee members is
set at $1 as per relevant General Assembly resolution.
Article 35 - Reporting by State Parties
The attempt by the Chairman to refer to Harmonised Guidelines on reporting
under international human rights treaties did not gain the necessary support.
It was rejected on the basis that the Harmonised Guidelines were not legally
binding and were not universal because the Human Rights Council that adopted
them has limited membership. It should be noted that the Harmonised Guidelines
were adopted by the Human Rights Council during its first session on 10 May
2006 under document HRC/MCI2006/6).
Article 36 - Consideration of the Reports
This article was not controversial. However, China successfully blocked the
requirement for countries to make general comments and recommendations of the
Committee widely available to the public. See 'paragraph 4.
Article 37 - Cooperation between State Parties and the Committee
This article solicited very little concern from delegates.
Article 38 - Relationship of the Committee with other bodies
The ED insisted that this article should proscribe a two way relationship
including how and what the Committee should do to enhance the relationship.
Paragraph 2 was thereafter reinstated.
Article 39 - Report of the Committee
This article did not solicit any concern from delegates.
Article 40 - Conference of state parties
There were some paragraphs on amendments and regularity of meeting of state
party conferences, which were deleted because they had been misplaced. It was
agreed that they should be placed in the final-clauses.
B. Final Clauses
The delegation of Lichtenstein facilitated the discussions on the final clauses
at the request of the Chairman. These clauses are of a technical nature on the
implementation process. They cover aspects such as the 'depository of, the
accession to, denouncing of, amendments to, entry into force of and UN official
languages in which the convention will be issued. These clauses were adopted without
any controversy during both informal and formal sessions. A historical
provision was made in the end clauses to ensure that the convention is made
available to users in all accessible formats .e.g. in Braille for blind people.
C. Definition of Disability
The Chairman appointed Jordan and Korea as co-facilitators on the definition of
disability. The purpose was to facilitate consensus 011 the definition of
disability. The South African delegation lobbied for support of the Cabinet
approved definition. . After a lengthy debate the facilitator produced a
compromise that did not define disability or persons with disabilities but
rather to have a new pre-ambular paragraph that addresses the evolving nature
of disability and that it results from the interaction between persons with
impairments and environmental and attitudinal barriers. In addition, Article 1
of the text makes reference to some of the impairments which in combination
with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation, of persons
with disabilities, in society on an equal basis with others.
4.3.2. Adoption of Articles.
It became clear that there was a major divergence of views between the ED and
the Arab Group on a number of issues that permeated through a number of articles.
In order to facilitate consensus the ED and the Arab Group met and reached
agreement on a basket of articles that clarified reference to gender, foreign
occupation, concepts of family and sexuality as well as the rights of children
in the preamble, Articles 6, 7, 11 and 23.
Articles 10 on the Right to life, 14 on Liberty and Security of the Person, and
22 on Respect for Privacy were adopted ad referendum without any amendments.
Articles 3 on General Principles, 9 on Accessibility, 13 on Access to Justice,
18 on Liberty of Movement and Nationality, 19 Living Independently and being
Included in the Community, 20 on Personal Mobility, 21 on Freedom of
Expression, Opinion and Information, 30 on Participation in Cultural Life,
Recreation, Leisure and Sport and 31 on Statistics and Data Collection were
adopted at referendum after delegations withdrew their proposals to amend the
agreed text from the previous session..
The following new paragraph was inserted in the preamble "Recognising that
disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the
interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental
barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an
equal basis with others". In pre-ambular paragraphs (a) and (f), the words
"and worth" were added after the word "dignity". Thus the
new phrase read as follows "dignity and worth". The Holly See
insisted on the insertion because in their view "worth" represents
life.
Paragraph (n) was amended by inserting the word "indigenous" after
the word "ethnic" as well as replacement of the word
"gender" with the word "sex". In paragraph (0) the phrase
"including its gender based manifestations" was deleted. The former
change aimed at protecting the rights of indigenous persons with disabilities,
while the latter was part of a compromise package between the EU and the Arab
Group related to article 23 on Respect for home and family. A new paragraph (v)
bis that was part of the same compromise package between the EU and the Arab
Group that reads "Convinced that the family and is entitled to protection
'by society and the state, and that persons with disabilities and their family
members should receive the necessary protection and assistance to enable families
to contribute towards full and equal enjoyment of the rights of persons with
disabilities" was also included. Pre ambular paragraph (v) ter reading as
follows "Emphasizing the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as
an integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development" was
included to ensure access to developmental programmes for all persons with
disabilities.
The Arab Group introduced a new paragraph (s) bis in the pre-ambular
paragraphs. This paragraph was part of facilitating a compromise agreement
between the EU and the Arab Group. The paragraph reads as follows:
"Bearing in mind that conditions of peace and security based on full
respect of the purposes and principles contained in the Charter and observance
of applicable human rights instruments are indispensable for the full
protection of persons with disabilities, in particular during armed conflicts
and foreign occupation". This was done in order to afford persons with
disabilities full protection during situations of foreign occupation such as in
Palestine.
This new language was agreed to by the EU because it was agreed language taken
from the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. The US called for a vote on this
article during the formal meeting. This paragraph was adopted 102 in support, 5
against and 8 abstention. Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and the US voted
against the resolution. The surprise came from the following African countries
that abstained namely: Cameroon (chair of the African Group), Cote d Ivoire,
Gabon, Kenya, Niger and Nigeria.
It should be noted that Cameroon had earlier in the week addressed the meeting
pledging Africa's support of the proposed Arab Group language that was presented
by Sudan. The Africa Group became embroiled in controversy minutes before
voting because countries like Kenya and Tanzania questioned the existence of an
Africa Group position on this matter.
Cameroon, despite, its earlier pronouncements could not stand firm and confirm
that an Africa Group meeting had been held and such a position taken. It was
finally agreed that individual counties would vote outside the framework of the
Africa Group. All the other pre-ambular paragraphs were adopted ad referendum except
paragraph (s) bis.
Article 1 on the Purposes was adopted ad referendum with the inclusion of the
following paragraph: "Persons with disabilities include those who have
long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which in
interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective
participation in society on an equal basis with others". This was done as
part of the facilitator's compromise proposal after failure to agree on common
definition of disabilities.
This language is an acceptable compromise because it does not define a person
with disabilities or disability itself but addresses the relationship between
environment and physical impairments and the role it plays in causing
disabilities. This serves the text well as disabilities is an evolving concept
and the existing definitions used in most countries is of a functional nature
aimed at serving the administrational purposes.
Article 2 on Definitions was adopted ad referendum with the exclusion of the
definition of disability. The acceptance of a new definition for reasonable
accommodation that included the words "or undue" being inserted
before the word "burden" was agreed to broaden the interpretation of
the concept. The reference to "national laws of general application"
was also deleted as it was removed from other articles in the text.
Article 4 on General Obligations was adopted ad referendum with the inclusion
of "without prejudice to those obligations applicable, without prejudicing
international law" at the end of the paragraph. The meeting accepted these
amendments on the understanding that it was necessary to 'reiterate that
general obligations should and must remain in line with applicable
international law.
Article 5 on Equality and Non-discrimination was adopted with the ED's
compromised language. The new text for paragraph 1 now reads: "All persons
are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the
equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination
and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status". This broadens the language of the paragraph to ensure equal
treatment of all, including persons with disabilities, before the law.
Article 6 on Women with Disabilities was adopted ad referendum with the first
paragraph amended to delete the last part of the paragraph after the word
"discrimination" and it being replaced with "and in this regard
shall take measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by them of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms". In paragraph 2 the words "and
empowerment" were inserted after the word "advancement". This
was part of an agreement reached to ensure that gender issues ware mainstreamed
in the convention without the explicit use of the term "gender"
Article 7 on Children with Disabilities was adopted with compromised language.
The language incorporated proposals from the ED for paragraph 1 that requires
States Parties to take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by
children with disabilities of all the human rights and fundamental freedoms on
an equal basis with other children. The Bosnia and Herzegovina proposal on
paragraph 3 that provides for the views of children to be given due weight in
accordance with their age and maturity 'was also included in the adopted text.
With the inclusion of the changes, the language in the article now mirrors that
in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Article 8 on Awareness-raising was adopted ad referendum with the following
amendments. The word "family" was included in the text of the
article. In 1 b the word "gender" was replaced by the word "sex.
These changes were as a result of package compromises that were agreed to
ensure universal applicability contained in other international instruments
such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 11 on Situations of Risk and Humanitarian Emergencies was adopted ad
referendum after agreement to amend the language contained in the Chairman's
text so that it now reads: State Parties shall take, in accordance with their
obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law
and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure protection
and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including
situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of
natural disasters.
This was also part of facilitating a package compromise agreement between the
ED and the Arab Group. Final compromise was reached on the last day. The reason
that all parties accepted the language was because focus was now on situations
of humanitarian emergencies and risk and that the focus on armed conflict and
foreign occupation was moved to the pre amble.
Article 12 on Equal recognition before the law was adopted ad referendum with
the paragraph 2 in the chairs text being re written so that it now reads"
States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal
capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life". Paragraphs
2 bis and 2 ter was adopted as the new paragraphs 3 and 4 and 'the original
paragraph 3 became the new paragraph 5. The only contentious issue with this
paragraph was the insertion of a foot note in paragraph 2 that indicates that
in Chinese, Russian and Arabic the reference to legal capacity refers to legal
capacity for rights rather than legal capacity to act.
Article 15 on Freedom from Torture, Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment was
adopted with a minor language adjustment aimed at standardisation of the clause
so that it is the same as in Article 7 of the ICCPR. To this effect the phrase
"on an equal basis with others" was inserted in the text. The
language of the article now more accurately reflects the agreed language found
in the ICCPR and strongly includes the non discriminatory elements.
Article 16 on Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse was adopted ad
referendum with the replacement of "gender" in paragraph 5 with
"woman and child focus". This was also part of facilitating a package
compromise agreement between the ED and the Arab Group. The explicit mentioning
of women and children also further mainstreams the convention and entrenches
its relevance to the two vulnerable groups.
Article 17 on Protecting the Integrity of the Person was adopted ad referendum
after the whole article was replaced by one sentence that reads: Every person
with a disability has a right to respect for his or her physical and mental
disability. It was agreed that the new formulation is the best way of capturing
the essence and all elements required in this article without stirring controversy,
Article 23 on Respect for Home and Family was adopted ad referendum with the
following amendments. The chapeau of the article now reads:
“States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to
marriage, family, parenthood and relationships, on an equal basis with others
so as to ensure that". Paragraph (a) in the Chairman's text was deleted.
The phrase "are recognized" was inserted after the phrase "family
planing education" in paragraph 1 (C) as well as the phrase "are
provided" at the end of the same paragraph. These changes allows for
universal application of the elements on family contained here-in..
Article 24 on Education was adopted ad referendum and the meeting agreed to
replace paragraph 2( d) with a new paragraph (d) that reads as follows
"That persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the
general education system, to facilitate their effective education" and a
new paragraph 2( d) bis that reads "That persons with disabilities receive
effective individualized support measures in environments that maximize
academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion. In
paragraph 4 the word "fluent" was replaced with the word
"qualified". These changes were introduced to ensure that persons
with disabilities have a range of educational options available to maximize
their education despite the type and complexity of disabilities.
Article 25 on Health was adopted ad referendum with paragraph (a) in the
working text being replaced by the following wording "Provide persons with
disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable
health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area
of sexual and reproductive health and population based public health
programmes". A new paragraph (f) that reads as follows was also added
"Prevent discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food
and fluids on the basis of disability". This allows for greater equality
in accessing health care services and programmes for persons with disabilities.
Article 26 on Habilitation and Rehabilitation was adopted ad referendum with
the addition of paragraph 2 bis as suggested by Uganda that oblige State
Parties to promote the availability, knowledge and use of assistive devices and
technologies designed for persons with disabilities, as they relate to
habilitation and rehabilitation. This change was meant to entrench the
promotion by state parties of access to assistive devices during the
habilitation and rehabilitation processes.
Article 27 on Work and Employment was adopted ad referendum with paragraph (c)
being amended to delete "and in accordance with national laws of general
application" and the retention of "on an equal basis with
others". In paragraph (f) the word "cooperatives" has been
inserted. The changes broaden and ensure equitable treatment of persons with
disabilities in the open labour market.
Article 28 on Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection was adopted
with compromised language that incorporated the Mexican proposal to make
reference to "clean water services, and to" before the reference to
"ensure access". By including the changes the text reflects the
importance of access to water on broader concept of social protection.
Article 29 on Participation on political and public life was adopted ad
referendum with the words "in accordance with national laws of general
application" being replaced with "on an equal basis with others"
This formulation more accurately reflects the non-discriminatory framework of
the draft convention.
Article 32 on International Cooperation was adopted with compromised language
in paragraph 2 by stipulating that the provisions of the article are 'without
prejudice to the obligations of each State Party to fulfil its obligations
under the convention and the withdrawal of a proposal from the Arab Group. This
adoption was at the insistence of the EU and other developed states, who were
of the view that they would not accept any other formulation because they were
of the view that the alternative formulation might allow states parties to
abdicate their responsibilities under the convention.
Article 33 on National Implementation and Monitoring was adopted with the
acceptance of compromised language for paragraph 1 that inserted "in
accordance with their system of organisation" after States Parties and
"within Government" after the word "mechanism" in the last
sentence of the paragraph. In paragraph 2 the compromise inserted the words
"within a States Party a framework, including one or more independent
mechanisms, as appropriate" and the deletion of the words "at the
national level, an independent mechanism" and "taking into account,
where necessary, gender and age specific issues". Paragraph 3 was accepted
without any change. These changes were made to accommodate various systems of
government.
The provisions for an International Follow up Mechanism contained in Articles
34 on a Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, 35 on Reporting
by State Parties, 36 on Consideration of the Reports, 37 on Cooperation between
State PaI1ies and the Committee, 38 on the Relationship of the Committee with
other bodies, 39 on the Report of the Committee and 40 on the Conference of
State Parties was adopted by the on meeting on the basis of the facilitator's
text that was developed through intensive negotiations and agreed to by
consensus.
The end clauses contained .in the Articles A on the Depository of the
Convention, B on the opening to Signature of the convention, C on the Consent
to be Bound to the provisions of the convention, D on Regional Integration
Organisations, E on Entry into Force, F on Reservations, G on Amendments, H on
Denunciations, H bis on the availability of the convention in Accessible
Formats and I on Authentic Texts were adopted on the basis of the facilitator's
text that was developed through negotiations and agreed to by consensus.
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18
containing the provisions of an Optional Protocol was also adopted.
5. CONCLUSION
The draft text of the convention was adopted by consensus except for
pre-ambular paragraph (s) that needed a vote to secure its inclusion. The
Chairman indicated that a drafting team would be constituted to finalise the
Convention before it is presented to the General Assembly for adoption in
preparation for opening it for signature and ratification. Ambassador Jan
Eliasson, the President of the General Assembly, thanked all the States Parties
for the spirit of cooperation that resulted in the conclusion of the task set
before them. He emphasised the fact that a clear message was being sent out
that all human beings are equally important. The quality of the text of the
draft convention was due to a cooperative effort between State Parties and the
Disabled Persons Organisations who participated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that South African start preparing for the signing of the convention
to be followed by preparations for the ratification process.