UN Human Rights Treaties

United Nations A/58/181
General Assembly Distr.: General
24 July 2003
Original: English
03-44322 (E) 210803
*0344322*
Fifty-eighth session
Item 119 (b) of the provisional agenda*
Human rights questions: human rights questions, including
alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment
of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Progress of efforts to ensure the full recognition and
enjoyment of the human rights of persons with disabilities
Report of the Secretary-General
Summary
In its resolution 2002/61, the Commission on Human Rights requested the
Secretary-General to report annually to the General Assembly on the progress of
efforts to ensure the full recognition and enjoyment of the human rights of persons
with disabilities. The Commission’s resolution was endorsed by the Economic and
Social Council in its decision 2002/265 of 25 April 2002.
The present report focuses on the issue of procedural safeguards for persons
with mental disabilities. It analyses briefly the key international human rights
instruments relating to persons with mental disabilities, with a view to identifying the
main substantive standards and procedural guarantees applicable with regard to
persons with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. In particular, the report
considers such issues as legal capacity, involuntary institutionalization and
involuntary or forced treatment, and reviews the way in which these international
standards are transposed into domestic legislation.
* A/58/150.

A/58/181
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–7 3
A. Mandate contained in Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/61 . . . . 1–3 3
B. Structure of the report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4–7 3
II. Human rights and disability: overview of the main international human rights
instruments applicable for persons with mental disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–13 4
III. Legal capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14–22 6
IV. Involuntary and forced institutionalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–33 9
V. Involuntary and forced treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34–42 12
VI. Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43–48 15

A/58/181
I. Introduction
A. Mandate contained in Commission on Human Rights resolution
2002/61
1. The present report is submitted in accordance with Commission on Human
Rights resolution 2002/61 of 25 April 2002,1 in which the Commission requested the
Secretary-General to report annually to the General Assembly on the progress of
efforts to ensure the full recognition and enjoyment of the human rights of persons
with disabilities.
2. Several reports are submitted every year to different organs (General
Assembly, Economic and Social Council) and subsidiary bodies (Commission on
Human Rights, Commission for Social Development) of the United Nations on the
issue of disability. In order to avoid duplication, the present report focuses on the
protection afforded by international human rights law to persons with mental
disabilities.2 The need to fill this information gap has been highlighted by the
Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission for Social Development
(E/CN.5/2002/4).
3. In its resolution 56/168 of 19 December 2001, the General Assembly
established an Ad Hoc Committee to consider proposals for a comprehensive and
integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of
persons with disabilities. Following the first session of the Ad Hoc Committee, the
General Assembly, in its resolution 57/229 of 18 December 2002, requested the
Secretary-General to seek the views of relevant bodies and organizations of the
United Nations system on proposals for a convention including, inter alia, questions
relating to its nature and structure and the elements to be considered. By focusing on
a particular issue not fully considered in the past, the present report also aims at
contributing to the discussions concerning the proposed new convention on the
human rights of persons with disabilities.
B. Structure of the report
4. The present report focuses on the issue of procedural safeguards for persons
with mental disabilities and aims at clarifying the protection afforded to them under
international human rights law. In particular, the report analyses such issues as (a)
legal capacity and arrangements for guardianship; (b) involuntary
institutionalization; and (c) involuntary or forced treatment. In the report, the term
“mental disability” (or “mental illness”) is used in its broadest possible sense, so as
to include persons with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. The term “mental
disability” is also used to refer to individuals with no disability, who are
nevertheless subject to discrimination on the perception that they have a mental
illness, and individuals with a background of past treatment or hospitalization as
patients with a mental disability.
5. The report does not aim to be an exhaustive analysis of human rights law as it
relates to persons with mental disabilities. Therefore, such issues as protection from
inhuman and degrading treatment (including protection from harm, unjustified
medication and abuse of physical restraint and involuntary seclusion, the right to be
treated in the least restrictive environment, the use of psychosurgery and other

A/58/181
intrusive and irreversible treatment for mental illness without obtaining informed
consent), sexual exploitation, sterilization, access to mental health care and
rehabilitation, and non-discrimination — although of extreme importance for
ensuring the equal effective enjoyment of all human rights by persons with mental
disabilities and closely linked with the need for procedural safeguards — are not
considered on this occasion.
6. In order to solicit information on national legislation and practice relating to
persons with mental disabilities, the Secretary-General distributed a questionnaire to
States, relevant bodies and organizations of the United Nations system and national
human rights institutions. Replies were received from the following States:
Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Costa Rica, Croatia, Guatemala, Lebanon, Mexico,
Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Serbia and Montenegro, Spain, Sweden
and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The United Nations
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, the Economic and Social
Commission for Western Asia and the World Health Organization submitted a
contribution. The following national human rights institutions and commissions also
provided information: the Human Rights Commission of Fiji; the National
Commission for Human Rights of the Hellenic Republic; the Hong Kong Equal
Opportunities Commission; the Islamic Human Rights Commission of the Islamic
Republic of Iran; the National Human Rights Commission of Mauritius; the National
Human Rights Commission of Mexico; the National Human Rights Commission of
Mongolia; the National Human Rights Commission of Rwanda; the Disability
Ombudsman of Sweden; and the Defensoría del Pueblo of Venezuela.
7. Section II of the report reviews briefly the key international human rights
instruments, with a view to identifying the main substantive standards and
procedural guarantees relating to persons with intellectual and psychiatric
disabilities. Section III considers the issue of legal capacity and analyses the
procedural safeguards existing under international law to protect individuals against
possible improper uses of guardianship. Section IV deals with the issue of
involuntary or forced institutionalization and highlights the principles of
international human rights law which should govern admission to mental health
facilities. Section V considers the substantive and procedural standards applicable in
the context of treatment, with a particular emphasis on the human rights
requirements for informed consent. Finally, section VI contains some concluding
remarks and recommendations.
II. Human rights and disability: overview of the main
international human rights instruments applicable for
persons with mental disabilities
8. Despite the lack of United Nations human rights treaties specifically
addressing the special concerns of individuals with mental disabilities, it is clear that
this group of individuals is entitled to the same protection that human rights law
affords in general to all persons. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in
articles 1 and 2, states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights and are entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

A/58/181
Although disability is not explicitly mentioned among the prohibited grounds for
discrimination, it is included in the concept of “other status” and is therefore one of
the prohibited grounds of distinction.
9. Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (article 2 (1)) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (article 2 (2)) include specific provisions
relating to non-discrimination, and provide persons with mental disabilities with the
right to liberty and security of person, to fair trial and to recognition everywhere as
a person before the law, and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical
and mental health, to education and to work, respectively. The Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 5 (1994) on
persons with disabilities, which spells out the relevance of economic, social and
cultural rights in the context of disability. In addition to the two Covenants, which,
along with the Universal Declaration, form the International Bill of Rights, other
core United Nations human rights treaties are of relevance in promoting and
protecting the rights of persons with mental disabilities.3
10. While most United Nations human rights treaties do not refer explicitly to
persons with disabilities, other human rights instruments, such as declarations and
resolutions adopted by international bodies, have set out agreed standards protecting
this group of individuals.4 In particular, the General Assembly adopted two
instruments specifically aimed at protecting and promoting the human rights of
persons with mental disabilities, namely the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally
Retarded Persons (resolution 2856 (XXVI) of 20 December 1971) and the Principles
for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental
Health Care (resolution 46/119, annex, of 17 December 1991).
11. As its inappropriate terminology shows, the Declaration is in many ways
outdated. It reflects an approach to disability commonly referred to as the “medical
model”, in which persons with disabilities are primarily seen as individuals with
medical problems, dependent on social security and welfare and in need of separate
services and institutions. Nevertheless, the Declaration shows the first signs of a
shift from a “caring” to a “rights-based” approach and contains some important
principles for the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with
intellectual disabilities. Significantly, the Declaration begins by stating that such
persons enjoy the same human rights as other human beings (para. 1). It then
includes a list of rights which are of particular relevance, including the right to
proper medical care and education.
12. The Principles set forth minimum human rights standards for persons with
mental disabilities, and provide valuable guidance for the implementation of State
obligations in the context of mental health facilities. They apply to all persons with
an actual or perceived mental illness, whether or not they are admitted to a mental
health facility. The Principles state that all persons with a mental disability — or
who are being treated as such — shall be protected from discrimination on the
grounds of mental illness and are entitled to enjoy the full range of civil, cultural,
economic, political and social rights set forth in international human rights
instruments. The Principles establish substantive standards and procedural
guarantees for involuntary or forced commitment and treatment in psychiatric
institutions. They also provide protection against the most serious human rights
abuses which may occur in such institutions, such as misuse or inappropriate use of

A/58/181
physical restraint or involuntary seclusion, administration of improper medication as
a punishment, sterilization, the use of psychosurgery and other intrusive and
irreversible treatment for mental illness without obtaining informed consent.
13. The Principles have served as a model for drafting mental health legislation in
several countries, and represent an important instrument for clarifying the content of
general human rights law with regard to the particular circumstances and needs of
persons with mental illnesses. However, it follows from their very legal nature that
they cannot impose the same level of legal obligation upon States as binding and
voluntarily accepted treaty obligations. Furthermore, they offer in some cases a
lesser degree of protection than that offered by existing human rights treaties, for
example with regard to the requirement for prior informed consent to treatment. In
this regard, some organizations of persons with disabilities, including the World
Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, have called into question the
protection afforded by the Principles (and in particular, principles 11 and 16) and
their consistency with existing human rights standards in the context of involuntary
treatment and detention.5 The Principles also lack specific provisions requiring the
competent judicial authority to adapt guardianship arrangements to the actual
capacities of the individual. The sections below provide information on the actual
implementation of the relevant international standards at the national level, with a
view to identifying those aspects which may be strengthened in the new proposed
convention on the human rights of persons with disabilities.
III. Legal capacity
14. Under international human rights law, individuals have the right to be
recognized as persons before the law.6 This right finds its corollary in the principle
of autonomy or self-determination, according to which each individual is presumed
to be able to make life choices and act independently on the basis of his or her
conscience. Individuals with a mental illness may in some circumstances be unable,
because of the severity of their condition, to protect their own interests. In those
cases, the person may be “incapacitated” and placed under legal guardianship. The
function of guardianship is to protect the individual from any danger which his or
her mental conditions may cause.7 International human rights law requires the
adoption of substantial and procedural guarantees to prevent improper recourse to,
and use of, guardianship arrangements.
15. The right to recognition as a person before the law is often neglected in the
context of mental health. The concept of guardianship is frequently used improperly
to deprive individuals with an intellectual or psychiatric disability of their legal
capacity without any form of procedural safeguards. Thus, persons are deprived of
their right to make some of the most important and basic decisions about their life
on account of an actual or perceived disability without a fair hearing and/or
periodical review by competent judicial authorities. The lack of due process
guarantees may expose the individual whose capacity is at stake to several possible
forms of abuse. An individual with a limited disability may be considered
completely unable to make life choices independently and placed under “plenary
guardianship”. Furthermore, guardianship may be improperly used to circumvent
laws governing admission in mental health institutions, and the lack of a procedure
for appealing or automatically reviewing decisions concerning legal incapacity

A/58/181
could then determine the commitment of a person to an institution for life on the
basis of an actual or perceived disability.
16. The Principles on mental illness establish substantive standards and procedural
guarantees against the improper use of guardianship. Principle 4 states that a
determination of mental illness must be made in accordance with internationally
accepted medical standards.8 Principle 1 (6) provides that any decision that, by
reason of his or her mental illness, a person lacks legal capacity, and any decision
that, in consequence of such incapacity, a personal representative shall be appointed,
shall be made only after a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by domestic law.9 The person whose capacity is at issue is entitled to be
represented by a counsel. In order to avoid possible conflicts of interest, principle 1
(6) also provides that the counsel shall not in the same proceedings represent a
mental health facility or its personnel and shall not also represent a member of the
family of the person whose capacity is at issue. The decision concerning capacity
and the need for a personal representative must be reviewed at reasonable intervals
prescribed by domestic law and the person whose capacity is at issue, his or her
personal representative, if any, and any other interested person have the right to
appeal this decision to a higher court.
17. According to principle 1 (7), a person can be deprived of his or her legal
capacity only where a court or other competent tribunal finds that a person is unable,
due to his or her mental conditions, to manage his or her own affairs. In that case,
measures shall be taken, so far as is necessary and appropriate to that person’s
condition, to ensure the protection of his or her interests. The Principles do not
provide any element to evaluate whether the measures concerning the denial or
restriction of legal capacity adopted by the tribunal are “necessary” and
“appropriate”. However, the right to be recognized as a person before the law and
the principle of proportionality seem to suggest that any restriction on a person’s
right must be based on a specific finding that the individual lacks the capacity to
make decisions by himself or herself with regard to that specific activity.
Consequently, the court’s decision should ascertain that the limitation of the
individual’s capacity is strictly necessary to protect the rights of the person whose
capacity is at issue and specify exactly what powers the guardian has and what legal
capacity the person retains. Outside those cases, the placement of persons with
mental illness under plenary guardianship could constitute a violation of the right to
be recognized as a person before the law and, insofar as it denies people with mental
disabilities the ability to exercise the same rights as all other persons, also
constitutes illegal discrimination under article 26 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (equality before the law).
18. From the submissions received, it appears that, in general, a person can be
deprived of his or her legal capacity when she or he is totally or partially unable to
take care of his or her affairs on his or her own, owing to a psychiatric or mental
disorder. In some countries, persons with a sensorial impairment who have not
received a proper education are deemed incapable of taking decisions concerning
themselves.10 The application is usually submitted by a spouse, next of kin or the
public prosecutor.
19. In most of the responding countries, the decision on legal capacity is taken by
the competent civil court, usually on the basis of the views of a mental health
practitioner.11 An exception is represented by the Netherlands, where the decision on

A/58/181
capacity is taken by a care provider in consultation with the members of his or her
team, and usually after having heard the opinion of an independent physician. In
Hong Kong SAR, the appointment of a guardian is decided by the Guardianship
Board, which is composed of experts in different disciplines. While the case is being
heard, the judge can, in some cases, adopt interim measures, including the
appointment of a provisional guardian, to protect on a temporary basis the interests
of the person concerned.12 The person whose capacity is at stake is represented by
his or her legal representative or provisional guardian; in some cases, she or he can
participate and be heard at the capacity hearing.13 In Venezuela, such participation is
required for the validity of the proceedings.
20. Courts can usually choose among different guardianship arrangements. In most
countries, the legislation provides two kinds of guardianship arrangements: “full
guardianship”, an arrangement for those situations in which the person concerned is
deemed completely unable to act independently, and partial guardianship”, a less
restrictive arrangement, in which the judge must specify the acts that the person
concerned may carry out independently and those for which the assistance of a
guardian is required. In some Spanish-speaking countries,14 for example, the
legislation distinguishes between tutela (full guardianship) and curatela (partial
guardianship). In a few countries, the courts may choose among a wider list of
options. Under article 1679 of the Greek Civil Code, for example, the judge may
adapt the two existing forms of guardianship (“privative judicial support”, which
corresponds to full guardianship, “auxiliary judicial support”) to the particular
circumstances of the case (so-called “combined judicial support”), and indicate the
legal acts that the persons may carry out on his or her own and those for which she
or he requires the guardian’s approval. In the Netherlands, the court may choose
among the appointment of a guardian (the most far-reaching protective measure), an
administrator or a tutor.
21. In most countries, the consequences of the determination of legal incapacity
depend on the form of representation chosen by the court. In general terms, persons
subject to full guardianship cannot perform any legal act by themselves and must be
assisted at all times by their guardians (although they may retain the capacity to
carry out independently some legal acts belonging to the sphere of family law, such
as the testamentary capacity15 or the capacity to get married),16 whereas persons
subject to partial guardianship retain their legal capacity for those acts which have
not expressly been attributed to the guardian. In Sweden, a person for whom a
guardian is appointed loses the right to decide only on the matter(s) covered by the
guardianship decision, but in all other respects retains his or her legal competence; a
person for whom a conservator is appointed retains instead full legal competence. In
the United Kingdom, there are different approaches to testing capacity and different
definitions of capacity, most of which are set out in case law rather than in statute. A
new single definition of capacity, called “functional test”, is currently under
discussion. It would allow for cases in which the individual is able to make some
decisions, but is unable to understand the implications of others, thus ensuring that
they are not excluded from making decisions that they are capable of making.
22. The submissions received indicate that, in the countries concerned, the
decisions concerning capacity may usually be appealed to a higher court. In some
countries, an appeal may also be lodged with other authorities. In the Netherlands,
for instance, the decision on capacity may ultimately be reviewed by a complaints
committee, the Medical Disciplinary Board or the ordinary courts. In Sweden, an

A/58/181
appeal can be lodged with the chief guardian, whose function is to supervise the
administration work carried out by guardians and conservators, or with the district
court; in the former case, an appeal against decisions of the chief guardian may be
made to the district court. Where a national human rights commission or institution
exists, complaints may also be lodged with it.17 In most of the replies received, there
is no reference to any requirement for a periodic review of decisions concerning
legal capacity and guardianship arrangements. In Mauritius, there is a constant
supervision by the Ministère Public and a person may cease to be legally
incapacitated if she or he has been treated and has recovered his/her sanity.18
IV. Involuntary and forced institutionalization
23. Article 9 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall
be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty
except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by
law.19 This provision is of extreme importance in the context of civil commitment of
persons with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities, as it requires that the
institutionalization of persons with disabilities in mental health facilities be carried
out in accordance with the substantive standards and the procedural guarantees
established by national law. In its General Comment No. 8 (1982) on liberty and
security of person, the Human Rights Committee pointed out (para. 1) that the
protection afforded by article 9 (1) was applicable to all deprivations of liberty,
whether in criminal cases or in other cases such as, for example, mental illness. In
particular, the Committee recognized that the right to control by a court of the
legality of the detention applied to all persons deprived of their liberty, and that
States parties had to ensure that an effective remedy was provided in other cases in
which an individual claims to be deprived of his liberty in violation of the Covenant.
24. The general protection afforded under article 9 of the Covenant is
supplemented by the Principles on mental illness, which set forth substantive criteria
and due process protections against improper detention in mental health facilities.
25. With regard to the substantive criteria, the Principles limit involuntary
admission to a mental health facility to people who have been diagnosed with a
mental illness by a qualified mental health practitioner in accordance with
internationally accepted medical standards.20 A determination of mental illness is a
necessary but not sufficient ground for involuntary commitment. Principle 9
provides, in fact, that “every patient shall have the right to be treated in the least
restrictive environment” and principle 15 (1) stipulates that where a person needs
treatment in a mental health facility, every effort shall be made to avoid involuntary
admission. Therefore, a person with a mental illness may be admitted to a
psychiatric institution only if one of the two additional criteria referred to in
principle 16 (1) are met. According to the first criterion, the person must present a
“serious likelihood of immediate or imminent harm” to him or herself or to other
persons (principle 16 (1) (a)). Alternatively, a person whose mental illness is severe
and whose judgement is impaired may be committed to a psychiatric facility if
failure to admit or retain that person is likely to lead to a serious deterioration in his
or her condition or will prevent the giving of appropriate treatment that can only be
given by admission to a mental health facility in accordance with the principle of the
least restrictive alternative (principle 16 (1) (b)).

A/58/181
26. It has been noted that “this second criterion for commitment is much broader
than the first, and it creates a risk of opening up psychiatric commitment to anyone
who is determined to ‘need treatment’.”21 However, the reference to the principle of
the least restrictive alternative greatly limits the discretionality of the mental health
practitioner, and permits institutionalization only as an extrema ratio, that is, only
when the person cannot be adequately treated and cared for in the community in
which he or she lives (principle 7 (1)). Principle 16 (1) also provides that in the case
referred to in subparagraph (b), a second such mental health practitioner,
independent of the first, should be consulted, and that if such consultation takes
place, the involuntary admission or retention may not take place unless the second
mental health practitioner concurs.
27. With regard to procedural guarantees, principle 16 (2) establishes that
involuntary admission or retention shall initially be for a short period as specified by
domestic law for observation and preliminary treatment pending review of the
admission or retention by the review body. The grounds and the fact of the
admission must be communicated to the person “without delay”, and also
communicated “promptly and in detail” to the review body, to the person’s personal
representative, if any, and, unless the person objects, to his or her family. The review
body is a judicial or other independent and impartial body established by domestic
law and functioning in accordance with procedures laid down by domestic law. Its
function is to review whether the decision to admit or retain a person as an
involuntary patient has been taken in accordance with the substantive criteria set
forth in principle 16 (1) (principle 17 (1)). In formulating its decision, the review
body is assisted by one or more qualified and independent mental health
practitioners, who must be independent from the institution seeking the involuntary
commitment.
28. The person, his or her personal representative and any interested person have
the right to appeal to a higher court against a decision that the person be admitted to,
or be retained in, a mental health facility (principle 17 (7)). An involuntary patient
may also apply to the review body for release or voluntary status, at reasonable
intervals as specified by domestic law (principle 17 (4)). At each review, the review
body considers whether the criteria for involuntary admission set out in principle 16
(1) are still satisfied and, if not, the person has to be released. The review body also
have the task to review decisions concerning involuntary commitment ex officio, at
reasonable intervals as specified by domestic law (principle 17 (3)). Principle 18
contains detailed provisions to ensure that the right of the person subject to civil
commitment to a fair process22 is effective. The person has the right to choose and
appoint a counsel to represent him or her in any complaint procedure or appeal. She
or he and his or her counsel are entitled to attend, participate and be heard
personally in any hearing, and to request and produce independent mental health
reports as well as oral, written and other evidence that are relevant and admissible.
They also have a right to access to the patient’s records.
29. Some of the submissions received provided information on the procedure to be
followed in case of involuntary admission of a person with a mental illness in a
mental health facility. In general terms, decisions concerning institutionalization can
only be adopted by the judicial authority, on the basis of a previous diagnosis of
mental illness. In some countries, where commitment to a mental health facility is
carried out without the previous intervention of the judicial authority (i.e. in
emergency situations, where there is a concrete and imminent threat for the health of

A/58/181
the person or the safety of others), mental health authorities must promptly request a
review of this decision by the competent judge.23 In other countries, however,
decisions on compulsory care are taken by medical officers, and only at a later stage
subject to the scrutiny of the judicial authority.24 In Sweden, for example, the
decision on compulsory care is taken by the chief medical officer at the department
of psychiatric care without the intervention of the court, which is needed only if
treatment must be provided for more than four weeks from the decision on
admittance.
30. In most of the countries concerned, institutionalization can be requested only
when the person presents a danger for him or herself or other persons. In others,
civil commitment in a psychiatric institution may also be ordered when the person is
in need of treatment.25 In the latter case, national legislation often provides
procedural safeguards, such as the appointment of a special representative for the
person (defensor especial),26 aimed at ensuring that admission to psychiatric
facilities is not prolonged for more than is necessary for reasons of treatment. In
Sweden, compulsory care can only be provided if a person suffers from a serious
mental disorder and due to his or her mental condition and personal circumstances
has an unavoidable need of psychiatric care, which cannot be provided in any other
way than the patient being admitted to a medical institution.27 In a few cases (Costa
Rica, Mexico), a person can be involuntarily admitted as a patient without a
previous diagnosis of mental illness, on the sole basis of a certificate issued by a
qualified medical doctor stating that treatment is necessary for the patient.
31. The application for involuntary institutionalization is usually lodged by a
medical practitioner, the guardian or tutor or the closest relatives of the mentally ill
person. In some countries, the application may also be submitted by other persons,
such as the public prosecutor (Greece), an approved social worker (Croatia, United
Kingdom) or any citizen when the person concerned represents a threat to public
security.28 The decision on institutionalization is usually based upon the written
opinion(s) of one29 or two30 independent medical doctors or mental health
practitioners. In Rwanda, the judge must also seek the views of the Family Council,
an institution which protects and promotes the interest of the family and its
members. Usually, the court also hears the person concerned. In Venezuela, for
example, the absolute legal incapacity (interdicción) cannot be decreed without the
person concerned having been questioned and four immediate relatives or, in their
absence, family friends, having been heard.
32. In most responding countries, decisions on involuntary admission can usually
be appealed to the higher court. In others, they are appealed to the same court but
decided by a different judge (Croatia, Rwanda). Sometimes, involuntary patients or
their representatives can apply to a specific Mental Health Review Tribunal or
Commission.31 Complaints may also be lodged with the national human rights
institution or commission, where they exist (Fiji, Mongolia). In Costa Rica,
decisions on involuntary commitment may be appealed against before the
Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.32
33. Different mechanisms exist for the review of such decisions, with a view to
obtaining release. In Argentina, the Ministry for Minors and Persons with
Disabilities (Ministerio de Menores e Incapaces) and the special representative
(defensor especial) appointed pursuant to article 482 of the Civil Code33 verify that
institutionalization is limited to the time strictly necessary to ensure the fulfilment

A/58/181
of the therapeutic needs of the person. In some countries, the review of commitment
decisions is carried out by medical authorities at the institution, without the
involvement of any independent authority.34 In Fiji, the review is entrusted to the
Medical Superintendent and the Ministry of Health. In Greece, the institutionalized
person, his or her next of kin and the public prosecutor may apply for the review of
the commitment decision, and the court decides, taking account of a report on the
patient’s state of health prepared by the director of the psychiatric hospital and
another State psychiatrist.35 In Guatemala, the review is carried out by the Dirección
Ejecutiva of the National Hospital for Mental Health. In Rwanda, the review of
commitment decisions is entrusted to the Family Council. In Spain, the review is
carried out periodically by the judge on the basis of information provided by the
medical authorities. In Sweden, it is carried out by the court four weeks after the
initial admittance, and a four-month extension may be granted. For further extension
of time, a new decision by the court, granting authorization for at most six months at
a time, is needed.
V. Involuntary and forced treatment
34. The right to be recognized as a person before the law, along with the basic
human rights principles of dignity and autonomy, endows individuals with the right
to make independent life choices on the basis of their conscience. Other rights, such
as the right to privacy (article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights) and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 18 of
the Covenant), may also be relevant in ensuring the effective enjoyment of the right
to decide autonomously about one’s life. Persons with mental disabilities — and in
particular those residing in mental health institutions — are often deprived of this
right, on the assumption — sometimes erroneous — that they lack capacity for selfdirected
action and behaviour. The violation of their right to self-determination may
be particularly serious with regard to involuntary or forced treatment, that is, with
regard to those situations in which persons with mental disabilities are subjected to
medical treatment or scientific experimentation without their prior informed
consent.
35. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
ensures protection from torture or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment,
provides that no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or
scientific experimentation. The requirement of free and informed consent is
commonly alleged to be ignored in the practice of many mental health facilities. In
this regard, the Human Rights Committee affirmed that special protection in regard
to such experiments is necessary in the case of persons not capable of giving valid
consent, and that such persons should not be subjected to any medical or scientific
experimentation that may be detrimental to their health.36 The Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights linked this right to the right to health (article
12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), stating
that the latter includes the right to control one’s health and body, including sexual
and reproductive freedom, and the right to be free from interference, such as the
right to be free from torture, non-consensual medical treatment and
experimentation.37
36. The Principles on mental illness provide valuable guidance for the
interpretation of these human rights in the context of treatment of persons with

A/58/181
mental disabilities. Principle 9 sets out the basic human rights standards with regard
to treatment in mental health facilities. Treatment must be directed towards
preserving and enhancing the personal autonomy of the patient, and be provided in
accordance with applicable standards of ethics for mental health practitioners,
including internationally accepted standards. Thus, patients have the right to be
treated with the least restrictive or intrusive treatment, and on the basis of an
individually prescribed plan, discussed with the patient and reviewed regularly by
qualified professional staff. Principle 11 provides persons held in institutions with
protection against forced or involuntary treatment. It states that no treatment shall be
given to a patient without his or her informed consent. Informed consent is consent
obtained freely, without threats or improper inducements, after appropriate
disclosure to the patient of adequate and understandable information in a form and
language understood by the patient (principle 11 (2)). The person has also the right
to refuse or stop treatment, except as provided for in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 13 and 15
(principle 11 (4)). In this case, the consequences of refusing or stopping treatment
must be explained to him or her. The right to informed consent cannot be validly
waived.
37. However, the Principles contain several exceptions to the right to informed
consent. Principle 11 permits involuntary treatment when an independent authority
finds that the person lacks the capacity to give or withhold informed consent or
unreasonably withholds such consent, and is satisfied that the proposed plan of
treatment is in the best interest of the patient’s health needs. For individuals placed
under guardianship, the Principles provide that the guardian be fully informed about
the treatment and consent to it on the person’s behalf (principle 11 (7)).
Furthermore, involuntary treatment may also be given if a qualified mental health
practitioner authorized by law determines that it is urgently necessary in order to
prevent immediate or imminent harm to the patient or to other persons (principle
11 (8)). The Principles also provide exceptions to the principle of informed consent
with regard to major medical or surgical procedure and clinical trials and
experimental treatment. Principle 11 (13) states that a major medical or surgical
procedure carried out on a person unable to give consent can be authorized only
after independent review. Similarly, principle 11 (15) states that clinical trials and
experimental treatment on persons without their informed consent can be carried out
only with the approval of a competent, independent review body specifically
constituted for this purpose.38
38. Principle 11 provides procedural safeguards against abuse of the exceptions
provided in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 13 and 15. Paragraph 10 provides that all treatment
shall be immediately recorded in the patient’s medical records, with an indication of
whether involuntary or voluntary. The patient’s personal records are maintained by
the mental health facility, and the person and his or her personal representative and
counsel have the right to have access to the information contained in it (principle
19). These provisions aim at facilitating access to information concerning
involuntary treatment, with a view to allowing the person, his or her personal
representative, or any interested person, to appeal to a judicial or other independent
authority concerning any treatment given to him or her.
39. In most of the responding countries, domestic legislation requests that the
person, or — when she or he is subject to guardianship — his or her legal
representative, be informed of his or her rights and provide informed consent prior
to treatment. In some countries, consent to treatment may also be provided by the

A/58/181
next of kin.39 With some exceptions,40 persons are usually informed that their
consent is necessary for the administration of treatment and can always be
withdrawn. In Fiji, decisions regarding treatment of persons in institutions are
usually taken by the Medical Superintendent, on the assumption that once admitted
the person consents “to all treatments and procedures”. Patients and their relatives or
guardians are sometimes “informed” of the procedures, but in case of disaccord
between them and the Medical Superintendent, the latter’s decision will prevail “if
the treatment is critical for the patient”.41 In the Netherlands, the legislation
expressly recognizes the right to refuse treatment, but the person’s consent must be
explicitly sought only in the case of major examinations or forms of treatment. In
other cases, tacit consent is assumed instead.
40. In all the responding countries the principle of prior informed consent is
subject to exceptions, which in some cases are so wide that they risk compromising
the applicability of the general rule. Usually, these exceptions include the lack of a
legal representative,42 the need to adopt urgent measures to protect the patient’s
health43 or other persons (Croatia, Mongolia), risk for public health (Spain), and the
lack of other alternatives (Costa Rica). In the Netherlands, the person may be treated
against his or her will or that of his or her representative only insofar as this is
absolutely necessary to avert a serious risk to the patient or others arising from
mental disorder. In that case, the person’s closest relatives must be informed, the
Inspectorate notified and the measures registered in the patient’s medical records. In
the United Kingdom, the common-law principle according to which a valid consent
is required before medical treatment can be given is subject to exceptions in statutes.
Thus, treatment may be administered without the person’s consent when a second
opinion from a registered medical practitioner has ascertained that this is necessary
in the patient’s best interest.
41. The requirement of prior informed consent seems to be applied more strictly in
the field of major medical or surgical procedure and medical or scientific
experimentations. In a few countries, medical or scientific experimentations on
human beings are expressly prohibited by law.44 In most responding countries,
medical trials or research activities cannot be carried out without the person’s
informed consent. When the person is unable — due to his or her condition — to
provide a valid consent, medical experimentations can be carried out only when
their guardians have been fully informed about the nature, scope and implications of
the project and have consented to it (Costa Rica, Croatia). In the Netherlands, for
example, research on persons incapable of a reasonable assessment of their
interest — in principle prohibited — can be carried out with the consent of the
person’s legal representative when the research can only be performed on persons
belonging to a specific category and the risks are negligible. In some countries,
medical or scientific trials must be also approved by a medical ethics review
committee (Croatia, the Netherlands).
42. In the countries that replied to the questionnaire, patients or their legal
representatives can usually file a complaint with the competent authority with regard
to the treatment received in institutions. In Mongolia, a patient, his or her legal
representative or any other interested person have the right to appeal a decision on
medical treatment before a court or the national human rights commission. In the
Netherlands, people residing in mental health facilities may lodge a complaint
before the independent complaints committee which is established in each
institution, the Medical Disciplinary Board or the Health Care Inspectorate. In the

A/58/181
United Kingdom, the patient, his or her legal representative or the next of kin can
apply to the High Court for a judicial review of the decision concerning treatment,
and the Court has the power to adopt interim measures to prevent the treatment
taking place. Complaints can also be lodged with the Hospital Trust or the Medical
Health Act Commission, a statutory body with authority to investigate complaints
made by or on detained persons.
VI. Conclusions and recommendations
43. One of the major obstacles to the implementation of existing human rights
standards for persons with mental disabilities is the lack of specific guidelines
on their application. The Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental
Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care provide a valuable
starting point to clarify the content of general human rights standards with
regard to the particular situation of persons with mental disabilities. However,
a more detailed analysis of the implementation of State human rights
obligations in the context of mental health institutions would be desirable. This
clarification could be provided, for example, by the Human Rights Committee
in a general comment.
44. The protection afforded by the Principles needs to be strengthened in
some cases. The language used is in some cases outdated. The term “patient”,
for example, should be replaced by “person”.
45. The Principles lack an explicit right to refuse treatment for persons
detained in psychiatric facilities. The generous exceptions to this right
contained in principle 11 deprive it of real meaning. Psychiatric detention
should not mean giving up a person’s right to choose his or her medical
treatment. This right is firmly established under international human rights
law. Limitation of rights concerning treatment decisions should always be
subject to judicial review.
46. The Principles do not provide any element to evaluate whether the
decision on capacity adopted by a court is “necessary” and “appropriate” to
protect the interest of the person concerned (principle 1 (7)). Any restriction on
a person’s right must be based on a specific finding that the individual lacks
the capacity to make decisions by him or herself with regard to that specific
activity. The court’s decision must clearly determine the acts that the person
concerned can carry out alone and those for which she or he needs assistance.
Full deprivation of legal capacity must only be used as a last resort, when no
other alternative exists. The judge should always choose the option which, in
accordance with the principles of autonomy and proportionality, best
accommodates the needs of the person concerned. Decisions on legal capacity
should be subject to automatic review by the competent judicial authority at
regular intervals set out by law.
47. The criteria set forth in principle 16 (1) for compulsory
institutionalization should be reviewed. The serious likelihood of immediate or
imminent harm to him or herself may not represent a sufficient reason to
justify a measure that infringes dramatically on the enjoyment of several
human rights, including the right to liberty and security of person and the right
to freedom of movement. The consistency of the second criterion, which refers

A/58/181
to the person’s state of health, with existing human rights standards, should
also be analysed. In accordance with the principle of the least restrictive
alternative, the decision on involuntary admission should at the very least
provide evidence on (a) the risk of serious deterioration in the person’s health
conditions and (b) the lack of other viable alternatives, such as communitybased
rehabilitation. The decision on psychiatric commitment should always be
subject to judicial review and reconsidered periodically.
48. Abuses and violation of human rights standards are allegedly common
practice in many psychiatric institutions all over the world. Detailed
monitoring on the actual implementation of the rights of persons with mental
disabilities would be needed to assess respect for such norms in practice.
Existing human rights treaty bodies should encourage Governments to provide
information on measures adopted in this regard in their periodic report.
Notes
1 See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 2002, Supplement No. 3 (E/2002/23),
chap. II, sect. A.
2 The only human rights report entirely devoted to this issue was prepared by a Special
Rapporteur to the (then) Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities in 1986 (E.-I. Daes, Principles, Guidelines and Guarantees for the Protection of
Persons Detained on Grounds of Mental Ill-Health or Suffering from Mental Disorder,
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/17/Rev.1, United Nations, New York, 1986).
3 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Convention on the Rights
of the Child.
4 See, for example, the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (General Assembly
resolution 3447 (XXX) of 9 December 1975); the World Programme of Action concerning
Disabled Persons (General Assembly resolution 37/52 of 3 December 1982); and the Standard
Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (General Assembly
resolution 48/96 of 20 December 1993).
5 World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, Position Paper on the Principles for the
Protection of Persons with Mental Illness, Vancouver, July 2001,
http://www.wnusp.org/docs/positionpaper.html.
6 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 6; International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, article 16.
7 See article 5 of the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons: “The mentally
retarded person has a right to a qualified guardian when this is required to protect his personal
well-being and interests”.
8 This determination shall never be made on the basis of political, economic or social status, or
membership of a cultural, racial or religious group, or any other reason not directly relevant to
mental health status. Likewise, family or professional conflict, or non-conformity with moral,
social, cultural or political values or religious beliefs prevailing in a person’s community, shall
never be a determining factor in diagnosing mental illness. A background of past treatment or
hospitalization as a patient does not of itself justify any present or future determination of
mental illness.
9 See also article 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons.
10 Argentina, Guatemala and Panama.

A/58/181
11 Argentina, Armenia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Greece, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mauritius, Mexico
and Venezuela.
12 Argentina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Mauritius, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela.
13 Armenia, Costa Rica, Greece, Hong Kong SAR, Mauritius, Mexico, Rwanda, Serbia and
Montenegro, Spain, Sweden and Venezuela.
14 Costa Rica, Spain, Panama and Venezuela.
15 In Fiji, persons with mental disabilities who fulfil the requirements as to testamentary capacity
may write a valid will (Wills Act).
16 In Mauritius, for example, the person lacking legal capacity may get married with the consent of
the Court, which has to seek the views of the treating doctor, the person and the destined spouse,
as well as the parents, brothers and sisters of the incapacitated person.
17 See, for instance, article 9 (3) of the Law on the National Human Rights Commission of
Mongolia.
18 National Human Rights Commission of Mauritius, reply to the questionnaire, para. 6.
19 See also articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
20 Principle 16 (1). On the determination of mental illness, see also principle 4.
21 E. Rosenthal and C. J. Sundram, International Human Rights in Mental Health Legislation, in
New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 21, Number 3,
2002, p. 528.
22 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14; see also the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 10.
23 Argentina, Belize, Costa Rica, Croatia, Hong Kong SAR, Netherlands, Serbia and Montenegro
and Spain.
24 Armenia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Norway and Sweden.
25 Croatia, Fiji, Greece, Hong Kong SAR, Mauritius, Norway, Rwanda, Sweden, United Kingdom
and Venezuela.
26 Article 482 of the Argentine Civil Code.
27 Compulsory Mental Care Act, 1991, section 3.
28 Article 114 of the Argentine Civil Code.
29 Croatia, Guatemala, Mauritius, Mongolia, Netherlands, Rwanda and Venezuela.
30 Argentina, Belize, Fiji, Hong Kong SAR, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro, Sweden and United
Kingdom.
31 Hong Kong SAR, Mauritius and United Kingdom.
32 Article 5 of Law No. 7135 of 11 October 1989 (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).
33 See supra, footnote 29.
34 Costa Rica, Mexico and Norway.
35 Greece: article 99 of Law 2071/1992.
36 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 (1992) on prohibition of torture and cruel
treatment or punishment, para. 7.
37 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14 (The right to the
highest attainable standard of health), 2000, para. 8.

A/58/181
38 On the contrary, principle 11 (14) affirms that psychosurgery and other intrusive and irreversible
treatments for mental illness can be carried out only where the patient has given informed
consent and an independent external body has satisfied itself that there is genuine informed
consent and that the treatment best serves the health needs of the patient.
39 Argentina, Greece and Norway.
40 Fiji, Guatemala and Mauritius.
41 Fiji Human Rights Commission, Reply to the questionnaire, p. 8.
42 Costa Rica, Fiji, Hong Kong SAR, Mongolia, Spain and Venezuela.
43 Croatia, Hong Kong SAR, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom and
Venezuela.
44 Argentina, Armenia, Guatemala, Mexico and Panama.