UN Human Rights Treaties

United Nations A/AC.265/2003/4
General Assembly Distr.: General
6 May 2003
Original: English
03-35964 (E) 210503
*0335964*
Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and
Integral International Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Rights and
Dignity of Persons with Disabilities
New York, 16-27 June 2003
Views submitted by Governments, intergovernmental
organizations and United Nations bodies concerning a
comprehensive and integral international convention
on the protection and promotion of the rights and
dignity of persons with disabilities
Note by the Secretary-General
Summary
The present note was prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution
57/229, in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of
Member States, observer States, relevant bodies and organizations of the United
Nations system, including relevant human rights treaty bodies and the Special
Rapporteur, on proposals for a convention, including questions relating to its nature
and structure and the elements to be considered, in particular the work done in the
field of social development, human rights and non-discrimination, as well as issues
of follow-up and monitoring and the complementarity between a new instrument and
existing instruments. In the same resolution, the Assembly requested the Secretary-
General to submit to the Committee at its second session a comprehensive report on
the views submitted, to be issued at least six weeks before the commencement of the
second session.
The present note provides a summary and excerpts of the views of Member
States, intergovernmental organizations, and offices, programmes and specialized
agencies of the United Nations system that responded to the request of the Secretariat
for submissions. It covers aspects of a convention to promote and protect the rights
and dignity of persons with disabilities, including potential objectives, principles,
scope and elements of a convention; definitions of disability; monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms; options for modes of negotiation in the Committee;

A/AC.265/2003/4
complementarity with the monitoring of the World Programme of Action concerning
Persons with Disabilities and the Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities; monitoring and evaluation of existing
human rights instruments; and other elements. The note concludes by suggesting
models for a potential convention based on existing instruments.
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
II. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2–7 3
III. Contributions received from Governments, intergovernmental organizations and
the United Nations system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–73 4
A. General remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–14 4
B. Specific views of Governments: comments regarding the elements of a
convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15–43 6
C. Views and comments of intergovernmental organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44–48 12
D. Contributions by the United Nations system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49–67 13
E. Suggestions for the structure and contents of a convention based on existing
models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68–73 16

A/AC.265/2003/4
I. Introduction
1. In response to the request of the General Assembly in its resolution 57/229, a
note verbale was sent by the Secretariat to invite views on a convention. Replies
were received from the following countries: Algeria, Australia, Canada, China,
Colombia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Greece (on behalf of the European Union),
Hungary, Japan, Jordan, Lithuania, Mauritania, Mexico, Norway, Qatar, the Russian
Federation, Slovakia, Uganda and Thailand. The Pacific Islands Forum, the League
of Arab States and the African Union also submitted comments. The Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP); the United Nations Human
Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat); the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights; the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF);
the International Labour Organization (ILO); the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO); the World Health Organization (WHO); the Pan
American Health Organization (PAHO); and the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) made contributions. The Committee against Torture, the
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the
Rights of the Child limited their contributions to preliminary remarks.
II. Background
2. The United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-1992) saw the creation
of normative standards to advance the rights of persons with disabilities.
Superseding previously held notions of “social welfare”, those standards reflected a
human rights framework that would facilitate the full participation of persons with
disabilities in all aspects of life and development, on the basis of equality.
3. The connection between human rights, violations of fundamental freedoms and
disability was further elaborated in a report entitled “Human rights and disabled
persons” prepared by the Special Rapporteur on disability of the Commission on
Human Rights in the early 1980s. The report recognized the importance of further
developing jurisprudence within human rights mechanisms and institutions, at both
international and national levels, and of increasing efforts to adjudicate the rights of
persons with disabilities.
4. At the mid-point of the Decade, the first initiative for a convention emerged
during a global meeting of experts to review the implementation of the World
Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, held in Stockholm from 17 to
22 August 1987. The meeting recommended that the General Assembly convene a
special conference on the rights of persons with disabilities, with the mandate to
elucidate such rights and to draft an international convention on the elimination of
all forms of discrimination against disabled persons, to be ratified by States by the
end of the Decade, in 1992. The Government of Italy raised the possibility of an
international convention at the forty-second session of the General Assembly (see
A/C.3/42/SR.16), and the Government of Sweden proposed the elaboration of an
international instrument on the rights of persons with disabilities at the forty-fourth
session of the Assembly (see A/C.3/44/SR.16). Agreement was ultimately reached
on the elaboration of a non-binding instrument, the Standard Rules on Equalization
of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, in 1993. Unanimously adopted by the
General Assembly in its resolution 48/96, the Standard Rules are an international

A/AC.265/2003/4
instrument promoting disability-sensitive policy design and evaluation, as well as
technical cooperation.
5. A comprehensive comparative study of global disability policies and
programmes undertaken by the United Nations in 1997 (A/52/351) further identified
the need for a broad human rights framework which would draw upon the
considerable body of international norms and standards in various fields and
contribute to the advancement of the rights of all persons in society.1 The
Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution in 2000 to include the rights of
persons with disabilities in the monitoring mechanisms of relevant human rights
instruments.
6. In 2001, the Government of Mexico raised the issue of a convention to protect
and promote the rights of persons with disabilities,2 and in its resolution 56/168, the
General Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and
Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and
Dignity of Persons with Disabilities to consider proposals for a convention. The
Committee held its first meeting from 29 July to 9 August 2002, during which
discussions took place on a wide range of organizational and thematic issues
concerning a convention. In its resolution 57/229, the General Assembly invited
participation and input in the work of the Committee by all stakeholders:
Governments, international organizations, regional bodies and civil society,
especially organizations of persons with disabilities, as well as individual experts.
7. During the forty-first session of the Commission for Social Development
(2003) and the fifty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights (2003),
resolutions were adopted which called for continued contributions and collaboration
on a convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with
disabilities. The resolution adopted by the Commission on Human Rights also called
upon the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to
continue to implement recommendations related to the study on human rights and
disability commissioned by his Office. The report of the Secretary-General on the
implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons
(A/58/61-E/2003/5), which contains recommendations concerning the elaboration of
a convention, will be submitted to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session.
The report will also be made available to the Committee at its second session.
III. Contributions received from Governments,
intergovernmental organizations and the
United Nations system
A. General remarks
8. All replies addressed the elaboration of a convention on the rights of persons
with disabilities in accordance with operative paragraph 5 of General Assembly
resolution 57/229. Two responses (Colombia and El Salvador) provided comments
directly to the draft text previously proposed by the Government of Mexico (see
A/AC.265/WP/1).
9. Support for the work of the Committee to consider proposals for a convention
was widespread among respondents to the note verbale. Replies indicated a wide

A/AC.265/2003/4
range of issues to be considered in the context of an international convention:
international norms, standards and procedures; strategies for implementation at the
national level; rights of persons with psychiatric and developmental disabilities;
women with disabilities; accessibility to information technology and environments;
and the connection between development and disability. The fundamental principles
and provisions of the convention should be linked to development and address a
wide range of social, economic and cultural issues. Broad international support for
the proposed convention and effective implementation would be necessary for the
full realization of the human rights of persons with disabilities, while recognition
must also be accorded to the different historical and cultural backgrounds and
varying levels of development of countries. Special attention was required to the
situations of developing countries, in particular the least developed countries.
10. While recognizing the potential for adjudication of the human rights of persons
with disabilities within existing United Nations human rights mechanisms, a number
of references highlighted existing constraints and pointed out that mainstreaming
disability within existing United Nations human rights mechanisms was an urgent
priority. A number of comments raised the question of overall streamlining and
mainstreaming of disability in the existing human rights mechanisms while avoiding
duplication and overlap, as well as how existing instruments and procedures would
address the rights of persons with disabilities in an integrated and comprehensive
manner. Some replies expressed concern that the Committee must engage in a
systematic review of the complementarity and normative consistency between a new
convention and the existing instruments before considering elaboration of a
convention.
11. Many replies referred to the importance of not only the legal frameworks for
eliminating discrimination but also the effective formulation and evaluation of
legislation and policies on disability. Views were expressed that a new convention
should provide guidance on policies and legislation by defining obligations and
supporting implementation activities. A convention should provide a framework of
options to address the varying conditions of disability and their consequences not
specifically covered in existing international instruments.
12. Strong emphasis was given to incorporating a gender perspective in all efforts
to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities, in particular in the
process of elaborating a convention.
13. Many Governments expressed their commitment and support for continuing
promotion and implementation of the Standard Rules. It was noted that the Standard
Rules could provide comprehensive normative guidance and an empirical basis for a
new instrument.
14. A large number of replies reiterated the role of civil society as a crucial and
essential factor in the process of elaborating a convention, as well as in the
implementation of international human rights norms to promote the rights of persons
with disabilities. Non-governmental organizations, especially those of persons with
disabilities, experts, regional bodies and the Special Rapporteur on disability of the
Commission for Social Development are expected to be actively involved in the
process for the elaboration of a convention.

A/AC.265/2003/4
B. Specific views of Governments: comments regarding the elements
of a convention
Objectives
15. Among the objectives of a convention described in the replies were to promote
equal and effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by
persons with disabilities; to eliminate all forms of discrimination against persons
with disabilities; to clarify the content of the human rights principles and ensure
consistency and the applicability of all human rights in the disability context; to
provide an authoritative and global reference point for domestic law, policy and
initiatives; to include effective monitoring of the rights of persons with disabilities
through implementation of the new convention as well as existing international
instruments; to promote the removal and prevention of all barriers to the full
participation of persons with disabilities in all aspects of society; to enhance social
integration and social development through participation of persons with disabilities
as active contributors and beneficiaries; and to provide an international legal
framework to strengthen regional and international cooperation.
16. Mexico stated that the ultimate objective of a convention was twofold: to
achieve universal awareness of the needs of persons with disabilities; and to achieve
the full development of persons with disabilities and their inclusion in all spheres of
life, with conditions and opportunities equal to those of other people. The European
Union stated that a convention should be a balanced, realistic and legally binding
instrument that would aim to develop those provisions of existing human rights
treaties with a view to tailoring them, where relevant, to the specific circumstances
faced by persons with disabilities.
17. The need to acknowledge different levels of development and strengthen
international cooperation was raised by several countries, including Algeria, China,
the Czech Republic and Thailand.
Principles
18. A number of replies referred to the basic human rights principles as contained
in the six core international human rights instruments, as well as other international
instruments relating to disability: respect for human dignity; equality and nondiscrimination;
inclusion and participation; autonomy and self-determination.
19. Australia considered that the principles adopted in the Standard Rules should
form the basis for a convention, since they had received a high level of acceptance
by the international community. Mexico and Slovakia referred to the applicability of
basic human rights principles to the varying conditions of persons with disabilities.
The Czech Republic referred to the principles of mainstreaming and respect for
diversity.
20. Lithuania stated that the principles should be adopted from all international
norms and standards relating to disability, not only legal instruments but also
resolutions of United Nations bodies and organizations.
Scope
21. Many countries envisaged a holistic convention encompassing all human
rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural, and based on general principles

A/AC.265/2003/4
relevant to disability, such as equality and non-discrimination. The European Union
stated that the new instrument must take into consideration the diversity of persons
with disabilities, while at the same time recognizing common experiences of
discrimination based on disability. Qatar suggested that drafting a convention
required a realistic approach and stated that it would be difficult to draft a
comprehensive convention, and therefore the convention should be limited to
general principles, such as non-discrimination and equality, with the possibility of
adding more detailed protocols in the future. It felt that a highly detailed instrument
would be unlikely to gain broad acceptance among Governments.
22. Canada stated that any new instrument should build on the rights, norms and
standards set out in existing international instruments. China suggested that the
convention serve as a programmatic document offering guidance to all countries in
the protection of persons with disabilities. The Czech Republic stated that the
adoption of a binding instrument was necessary, providing common standards for
incorporating the experience in implementation of the World Programme of Action
and the Standard Rules. China stressed giving equal emphasis to human rights and
social development, a view also expressed by Thailand, which would include social
development in the scope of the convention, in addition to human rights and nondiscrimination.
23. Algeria, China and Qatar stated that a convention should take into account
different degrees of implementation of economic and social rights, as well as
technological advances and economic progress of each country, so that it could
attract broad support and widespread ratification. Algeria also emphasized the need
for a synopsis of the individual circumstances of each State. Japan and the Czech
Republic pointed to the jurisprudence in progressive achievement of economic and
social rights and its implications for the rights of persons with disabilities.
Definitions of disability
24. The definition of disability has been an integral concern to policy makers,
legislators and academics. Most replies noted that there is no single definition of
disability and reflected that disability was frequently dependent on context. Several
replies referred to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health adopted by the World Health Organization in 2001, and Canada suggested
that any definition should reflect that work so as to promote the standardization of
international disability terminology and collection of data on disability issues. The
view was expressed that a definition should reflect social dimensions of disability
and avoid the construction of disability as solely medical. Views were also
expressed that the definition must be harmonized with the principles of human rights
and the goals of specific laws, policies and programmes.
25. Algeria found the existing definitions useful, while Jordan preferred the
adoption of more progressive and comprehensive definitions. Japan stated that the
definitions should be universally accepted but leave flexibility for interpretation by
individual countries. The European Union considered it necessary to take into
account the diverse and complex nature of disability to preclude any
misinterpretations. Norway stated that the convention should cover disabilities
arising from all kinds of impairments (physical, mental, sensory) and the handicaps
that were imposed on persons with disabilities by the demands of society and
environment. The Russian Federation offered the following definition of persons

A/AC.265/2003/4
with disabilities: “persons whose health is impaired by a lasting deterioration of the
functions of the organism resulting from disease, injury or deficiencies, creating
limitations affecting their daily living and necessitating social protection”.
26. The European Union considered that the question of definition required further
consideration, and that any definition would need to strike an effective balance
between the diverse and complex nature of disability and the need to avoid overly
broad wording that could be subject to misinterpretation. The EU favoured
refraining from defining aspects of disabilities that were not necessary for the
purposes of the instrument, and suggested that detailed discussion of this subject
should be avoided at this early stage in the process since it was likely to hold up
substantive discussion. It was noted that there should be further discussion in which
this question is addressed in national laws, international law and substantive
measurement tools.
Elements
27. Many replies referred to the basic human rights provisions of the existing
international human rights and disability-specific instruments, such as the Standard
Rules. While the most fundamental human rights obligations should also be
applicable to all persons with disabilities, special measures were required to ensure
that persons with disabilities were to enjoy equal opportunities.
28. Canada pointed to the need to stipulate the obligations of States parties related
to equality and non-discrimination in national legislation and policies. China,
Mexico and Norway proposed a wide range of rights specifically focusing on
meeting the requirements of persons with disabilities, such as the right to access to
information and to the environment, as well as the right to social and health
services, so as to enable their full participation in society. Norway further stated that
States parties would commit to taking appropriate steps to create a society which
was free from man-made barriers and based on the principle of universal design, and
suggested that a convention should state that all future multilateral and bilateral
agreements on development aid should take appropriate account of the needs of
persons with disabilities and of the principle of universal design. Hungary referred
to its national legislation, which encompassed the rights of persons with disabilities
to accessibility, social services, medical care and rehabilitation, education,
employment, freedom of movement and cultural rights.
Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
29. All replies identified the need for an effective monitoring and evaluation
system, and some made specific suggestions. The Czech Republic, Jordan and Qatar
suggested parallels to existing mechanisms of United Nations human rights treaty
bodies. The Czech Republic considered that the mechanism related to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would be an
appropriate model since the new convention should be similar to the Covenant,
especially regarding obligations under the Covenant. It suggested a mechanism
based on the submission of reports to a special committee established by a new
convention. The committee would also be authorized to appoint a special rapporteur
to examine specific issues or to conduct inquiries. Jordan raised the possibility of
including a technical advisory body to provide guidance to Governments on matters
not specifically addressed by a new convention, including guidelines on

A/AC.265/2003/4
accessibility to the man-made environment and information technologies;
accessibility guidelines on the reconstruction of post-conflict societies; and
disability guidelines on programme design and implementation for international
development and humanitarian assistance work. Hungary, Qatar and Thailand
suggested provisions to ensure that persons with disabilities and their organizations
could participate in any monitoring and evaluation mechanism or exercises.
30. Uganda proposed the development and dissemination by the United Nations of
monitoring and evaluation forms that States parties would return to the United
Nations for analysis and feedback. China proposed holding biennial meetings of the
States parties to the Convention under the auspices of the United Nations. Such
meetings would be responsible for evaluating the implementation of the convention
and reviewing the recommendations and views put forward by committees of
experts, ultimately submitting them in report form to the main organs of the United
Nations. Thailand suggested the inclusion of targets and implementation plans in the
convention, as well as guidelines for implementation at both the national and
international levels. Australia, Canada and Japan expressed concern over duplication
of the work already done by other bodies and the need to discuss monitoring and
evaluation systems carefully. The replies indicated a desire to utilize, improve and
coordinate existing international mechanisms rather than create new ones. It was
important to avoid imposing additional onerous reporting requirements on States
parties. The Russian Federation stated that inclusion of disability in periodic
reporting under the existing treaty bodies would be sufficient and there was no need
for a separate body to monitor implementation of a new convention.
Options for modes of negotiation
31. Most replies emphasized the importance of involving persons with disabilities
and all other stakeholders concerned with the promotion of the rights of persons
with disabilities. Mauritania and Uganda saw the necessity of including the families
of persons with disabilities, especially parents of children with disabilities, in the
drafting process. China stated that contributions to the work on a convention should
be solicited through the framework of the current Committee, and proposed that
Governments include persons with disabilities and representatives of their
organizations in national delegations to the Committee. Canada also supported the
Committee as the appropriate means of examining the issue of an international
convention. El Salvador, Jordan, Lithuania and Mauritania proposed the
establishment of a working group to draft a convention. Jordan went on to state that
the Committee should be mandated to establish a working group, which would be
the focal point for contributions from all stakeholders. The involvement of persons
with disabilities in the working group should be considered on the basis of equitable
representation, based on geography and economic development as well as different
types of disability. China also proposed that periodic meetings be held in the coming
months either at United Nations Headquarters or other venues in order to speed
progress of work and achieve consensus to start drafting a convention.
32. Mexico proposed that the Committee consider at its second session the
proposals and input for the submitted text of a convention. Mexico stated that
options for the establishment of working groups or other forms of groups could be
discussed at a later stage as work progressed in the Committee and on the basis of
the proposal from its Chairman.

A/AC.265/2003/4
33. The Russian Federation proposed the establishment of an open-ended working
group to meet during the sessions of the Commission for Social Development,
following the example of the drafting of the optional protocol to the Convention on
the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Uganda suggested establishing a
consultative group, including policy makers, implementing agents, disability
organizations, service providers and families of persons with disabilities.
34. The European Union stated that the question of the mode of negotiation of a
future instrument was premature since the Committee was still in the process of
identifying its nature and structure as well as the elements to be included. It stated,
however, that it welcomed the submission of relevant new proposals and expressed
the hope that they would be given appropriate consideration. The work of the
Committee must be transparent and inclusive and incorporate the contributions of
both specialized non-governmental organizations and independent experts to the
advancement of the elaboration process.
35. Australia stated that the current discussion on a convention was proceeding
without a thorough examination of which of the rights of persons with disabilities
were not protected under existing instruments and whether there were methods for
closing those gaps that would not entail the negotiation of a new convention.
Canada, Japan and Norway reiterated that the existing mechanisms to promote and
protect the rights of persons with disabilities must be carefully reviewed to ensure
that any new instrument helped to coordinate, focus and enhance rather than
undermine the work of existing international bodies.
Complementarity with regard to monitoring of the World Programme of Action
concerning Disabled Persons and the Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities
36. Most replies stressed the need to continue implementation of the mechanisms
with regard to the two existing instruments. Thailand suggested that there should be
one specific monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the two existing instruments.
The Czech Republic stated that the monitoring of the implementation of the
Standard Rules was limited because of its non-binding nature.
37. According to the European Union, the elaboration of a new instrument should
not delay the process of refining and updating the Standard Rules. Effective
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, in particular, were necessary to ensure
effective implementation, transfer good practices and assist States in raising levels
of understanding concerning the relevant obligations. By carefully following up on
the ongoing work of the World Programme of Action and the Standard Rules, human
rights machinery can be streamlined in a way that promotes efficiency and avoids
duplication.
Monitoring and evaluation of the existing human rights instruments
38. Most replies referred to the existing human rights instruments and the need to
strengthen and streamline their machinery to incorporate disability more effectively
in the work of the existing treaty bodies. Australia, the European Union and Japan
stressed that the proposal for a new convention was an opportunity to promote other
relevant conventions and to improve their effectiveness to promote and protect the
human rights of persons with disabilities. Qatar stated that a convention would be
used to mainstream instead of marginalize the issue of disability. Complementarity

A/AC.265/2003/4
and avoidance of duplication would therefore be key issues during the negotiation
process, according to Norway.
39. Canada stated that the basic framework was represented by the six core United
Nations human rights conventions, and suggested that even if a new convention
were adopted, it would still be necessary to obtain maximum advantage from the
existing human rights instruments. Norway pointed to the need to clarify the
division of work between a possible new monitoring and evaluation mechanism and
the mechanisms of existing instruments. Monitoring and evaluation of a new
convention could possibly be undertaken by one or several of the existing agencies,
and in any case the disability perspective should be strengthened within existing
human rights mechanisms. The EU also suggested the need for concrete efforts to
mainstream the disability perspective into the monitoring mechanism of all core
United Nations human rights treaties, using a new instrument that was tailored to
relevant obligations within existing human rights treaties and that acknowledged the
specific circumstances faced by persons with disabilities. Japan noted that there
should be careful consideration given to options for a monitoring mechanism of the
new convention in view of the ongoing review of the official reporting obligations
of State parties under existing international human rights instruments.
40. The Czech Republic, Jordan and Mexico expressed the view that because no
requirement existed for States to report on the situation of persons with disabilities,
an authoritative international legal instrument for persons with disabilities was
needed based on examples of conventions pertaining to other social groups, such as
women and children. Jordan stated that the monitoring and evaluation mechanism of
a future convention should become the authoritative reference point for the
interpretation and application of existing general human rights instruments with
regard to disability.
41. Australia referred to an initiative to improve the effectiveness of the United
Nations human rights treaty monitoring bodies, and expressed concern about the
lack of adequate mechanisms under the existing international human rights treaties
to filter out complaints that were clearly inadmissible, the long delays caused by
multiple submissions and the inadequate reasons given for the views expressed by
the existing treaty bodies.
Other elements/proposals
42. Colombia and El Salvador emphasized the implementation of measures to
increase effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks and to strengthen service
providers. A convention should focus on standardizing existing norms and on their
effective implementation. Colombia also stated that the elaboration of a new
instrument could be linked to the establishment of an effective and reliable national
and international system for collecting information concerning persons with
disabilities and their families.
43. The Czech Republic and Jordan expected a new convention to provide a
framework for incorporating a coherent and authoritative set of norms to avoid
divergence in the interpretation of the same rights in different contexts. Jordan also
noted that the legislation of States parties could be used to identify areas that need
further development. Mexico, through the elaboration of a convention, sought to
promote international cooperation and exchange of information, as well as to
promote best practices and technical cooperation.

A/AC.265/2003/4
C. Views and comments of intergovernmental organizations
African Union
44. The African Union was convinced of the need for a legally binding instrument
specifically focused on the rights of persons with disabilities and recognized that
such a convention would add value to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
It pointed to the special need to consider the plight of persons with disabilities in
Africa. Of particular concern was the situation of women, who faced extra hardships
and low levels of education and represented some of the most marginalized citizens.
Furthermore, the African Union highlighted the need to consider the aspect of
sexuality, especially for women with disabilities, who might be forbidden from
getting married or having children simply because they were disabled.
45. The African Union affirmed that African people must strive to remove social
barriers and uphold the principle of affirmative action for persons with disabilities.
Based on the Proclamation and Declaration of the African Decade (1999-2009) as
well as the Plan of Action for the Decade approved in July 2002, the Union stressed
the pivotal role of regional bodies in their cooperation with Member States and
specialized agencies.
League of Arab States
46. In addition to its report on the principles and activities related to the
Conference of Arab States on Disability, held at Beirut in October 2002, the
contribution of the League of Arab States summarized the ongoing activities in the
Arab region, with specific reference to the preparation of an Arab Decade of
Disabled Persons, 2004-2013. Most notably, the League emphasized the need for
Arab States to participate in the elaboration of a new convention together with
regional and international institutions and persons with disabilities, as reflected in
the Manama Declaration adopted by the Arab States in Bahrain in March 2003.
Pacific Islands Forum secretariat
47. The Pacific Islands Forum secretariat was convinced of the need to formulate a
convention in order to address the lack of a legally binding instrument covering the
specific needs of persons with disabilities. The Forum called for a deep change in
societal attitudes and perceptions, and believed that a convention should be both
general and focused, and both broad-based and comprehensive and inclusive. It
should suggest inclusive measures, specifically with respect to education,
employment, transportation and access to information and communication
technologies. The involvement of persons with disabilities and their organizations in
the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, especially at the local and national
levels, would be key to the successful implementation of a convention. Partnership
between Governments and non-governmental organizations would benefit the
process, and the Forum recognized the need for consultation at the grass-roots level.
48. The proposal for a convention was relevant to Pacific island countries in view
of the Asia-Pacific Decade on Disability, the ESCAP special session on disability,
and discussion of the issue at the 2002 Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting. There
was growing awareness, advocacy and activity by regional organizations, and
subregional preparatory activities should be promoted, especially for small island
countries.

A/AC.265/2003/4
D. Contributions by the United Nations system
Summary of contributions
49. All contributions received from United Nations treaty bodies, organizations
and specialized agencies supported the drafting of a convention and the related
preparatory work at the national, regional and international levels. The complete
texts of all contributions are available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/
rights/adhoccom.htm.
50. Responses pointed to the need to consider the elaboration of a convention
within the context of follow-up to United Nations summits and conferences. The
convention should adopt a rights-based approach to reflect the paradigm shift in
development thinking from a charity model to a human rights model. As a core
objective, the convention should clarify the precise obligations of State parties in
realizing the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, with specific measures
to promote equal treatment and strengthen social inclusiveness. A convention should
make visible and accessible the rights of persons with disabilities, and should
provide access to justice and legal aid. Definitions contained in a convention should
be based upon those recognized by the United Nations, in particular the
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
51. The most important principles on which to build a convention included nondiscrimination
and the right to equal opportunities, without distinction of disability,
gender, socio-economic status or any other factor. Special attention should be paid
to overcoming multiple forms of discrimination. A basic element should be
empowering persons with disabilities to overcome vulnerability, and a convention
should recognize the specific link between poverty and disability. A convention
should articulate the recognition that meeting the basic needs of persons with
disabilities was essential to implementing their economic and social rights.
52. A new convention should be regarded as an addition to, rather than a
replacement of, the protection afforded by existing instruments in the disability
field. A multi-track approach would strengthen the implementation of existing
international instruments, especially the core United Nations human rights treaties.
Consideration should also be given to other legal instruments, jurisprudence and
lessons learned by institutions and organizations involved in the disability field. The
provisions of a convention should be regarded as minimum requirements, which
States parties might exceed in national laws.
53. The adoption of a new convention would enhance significantly the
implementation of the World Programme of Action and the Standard Rules by
complementing areas not sufficiently covered by the two existing instruments.
Information provided to any treaty-monitoring body established under a convention
could be routinely shared and provided, as appropriate, to other bodies.
54. Collaboration with existing mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation was
emphasized. A monitoring and evaluation system should involve social partners,
organizations of persons with disabilities and the United Nations system according
to respective areas of competence. An open and transparent negotiation process was
essential to the success of the elaboration of a convention, and all interested parties
should be involved, particularly persons with disabilities.

A/AC.265/2003/4
Contributions from specific offices, programmes and specialized agencies
55. The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean stressed the
fact that many persons with disabilities also suffered disadvantages as women or as
members of other social groups, including children, youth, indigenous peoples,
minorities, migrants, civilians in armed conflicts or humanitarian emergencies,
refugees or displaced persons. The extent to which non-discrimination and inclusion
policies for those groups considered the special case of persons with disabilities
should be a key issue for a convention. ECLAC also suggested the need to focus on
the link between disability and issues of conflict, in particular conflict-related
causes of disability, such as landmines and small weapons. Another priority was the
reintegration of victims in their societies.
56. The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific suggested that
a convention be built upon rights-based development principles, promoting the
social and legal visibility of people with disabilities, protecting their rights and
strengthening the value of complementary existing instruments. ESCAP pointed to
the principle of non-discrimination and equal opportunity, stating that they must be
applied to persons with disabilities without distinction of kind or degree of
disability, gender, socio-economic or national status. Emphasis should be placed on
further study of the link between poverty and disability. Consideration should be
given not only to medical but also to environmental and social factors, which might
greatly influence the experience of disability. The definition of disability must
recognize varying forms (physical, sensory, intellectual, psychiatric and multiple
disabilities) and whether it was permanent, temporary or perceived. ESCAP
suggested that Governments periodically submit self-evaluation reports, with a
specific mandate for participation by civil society in reporting. A convention should
establish an expert committee composed of persons with disabilities to monitor and
evaluate its implementation.
57. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
emphasized the importance of building on the existing norms and standards
contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the six core treaties and
other instruments in the process of elaborating a new convention. Jurisprudence and
the experience of human rights treaty bodies, non-governmental organizations and
specialized institutions should also be given attention. A new convention should be
regarded as an addition to the existing system rather than an instrument replacing
the protection afforded by existing human rights treaties in the disability field.
58. The Office of the High Commissioner encouraged the Committee to consider
the findings of its study entitled “Human rights and disability: the current use and
future potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of
disability”,3 as well as proposals suggested by the Secretary-General on the
streamlining of the reporting procedures under different treaties in his report entitled
“Strengthening the United Nations: an agenda for further change” (A/57/387). The
Office of the High Commissioner will prepare a report on the issue to be presented
in September 2003 and will make it available to the Committee.
59. Pending the next sessions in May and June of 2003 of the Committee against
Torture, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee
on the Rights of the Child, preliminary responses to the request for views on a
convention were provided. The responses referred to the relevance of the study
published by the the Office of the High Commissioner in 2002 (see para. 58 above).

A/AC.265/2003/4
They also suggested that proposals be considered on the streamlining of reporting
procedures under different treaties.
60. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees underlined the special
needs of refugees with disabilities. The United Nations Human Settlements
Programme pointed to increased accessibility of human settlements, improved
environmental conditions and provision of adequate housing, addressing the specific
needs of persons with disabilities as key elements for the elaboration of a
convention.
61. The United Nations Children’s Fund suggested building upon past experiences
with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women in elaborating a convention on
disability. Once fundamental principles were elaborated, the civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights of persons with disabilities should be broadly
considered before following the procedural provisions for the convention. UNICEF
also pointed out the importance of giving early consideration to the issue of
declarations and reservations and articles that might be considered fundamental or
incompatible with ratification. UNICEF suggested the reporting system of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child as a useful model, including the value of
individual petition mechanisms. UNICEF procedures of regular general comments,
which elaborated articles of instruments of human rights law, as well as the practice
of days of discussion, were also useful models.
62. Another example was provided by the mechanism for the contribution by nongovernmental
organizations to the work of the Committee on the Rights of the
Child, including the provision and consideration of alternative reports alongside
reports of States parties. In many cases, the involvement of civil society in treaty
monitoring processes led to the creation of a constituency for follow-up of
recommendations, adding greatly to the impact of work done by treaty-monitoring
bodies.
63. The International Labour Organization expressed concern that the provisions
of a new convention should not hinder the realization of the right to decent work of
persons with disabilities contained in existing law at national or international levels,
in particular ILO Convention No. 159 on vocational rehabilitation and employment
of persons with disabilities. Specific elements in a convention should address
education and vocational training, employment and working conditions in relation to
the special needs of persons with disabilities. A convention should provide
vocational rehabilitation services to enable persons with disabilities to enter
employment or gainful activities, with vocational training and employment services
to be adapted as required; equal treatment and equal opportunity in matters of
employment (non-discrimination, equal pay for work); incentives and advisory
services for the recruitment of persons with disabilities; development of alternative
forms of employment for people who could not find work through the labour
market, while ensuring that the work they do was useful and remunerative; and
income replacement and social protection benefits for persons with disabilities,
while ensuring that those were not a disincentive with regard to vocational
rehabilitation, training or employment.
64. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations pointed to the
necessity of including the right to food as a fundamental human right in the
framework of a convention. Because many persons with disabilities were farmers or

A/AC.265/2003/4
people living in rural areas, their ability to feed themselves and their families was of
key importance in rural settlements. FAO also stressed that malnourishment and
undernourishment were important factors in the analysis of causes of disability, and
of linkages between poverty and disability.
65. The World Health Organization focused on physical, psychiatric, intellectual
and sensory impairment when defining disability. A convention should encompass
visible and invisible disability as well as permanent and temporary impairments, and
should include consideration of gender and all age groups. The Pan American
Health Organization underlined the importance of the right to medical care in the
least restrictive environment, together with the rights to medical and experimental
treatments according to existing international human rights instruments.
66. PAHO further suggested that a convention should address issues of specific
rights, fundamental freedoms and living conditions in psychiatric and disability
institutions; admissions procedures; mental and physical disability review processes;
treatment, standards of care and rehabilitation programmes; consent to treatment;
procedural safeguards; suspension of guarantees; monitoring mechanisms and
remedies; guidelines to implement domestic mechanisms, measures and remedies,
international mechanisms for protection; and transitory provisions. The obligations
of States parties with respect to the specific needs and characteristics of persons
with disabilities should be clearly included in a convention. Special standards of
protection in the monitoring mechanisms and adequate forms of inclusion and
integration should be suggested, along with issues of participation, accessibility and
social inclusion.
67. The International Civil Aviation Organization reported relevant articles and
procedures on persons with disabilities contained in the annex on facilitation to the
Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Efforts have been put in place
worldwide to facilitate travelling by air for persons with disabilities.4
E. Suggestions for the structure and contents of a convention based
on existing models
68. The experience of the United Nations system with existing conventions
suggests three models that the Committee may wish to consider: a holistic rights
model (Convention on the Rights of the Child); a non-discrimination model
(Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination); and a hybrid
model, combining social development and human rights elements.
Holistic model
69. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a holistic convention, including
all categories of human rights — civil, political, economic, social, and cultural —
that are applicable to children. Although those rights are based on existing human
rights applicable to all human beings, those stipulated in the Convention are more
specifically tailored to the needs of children, and it includes the rights that are only
applicable to children, such as those related to the family environment.

A/AC.265/2003/4
Non-discrimination model
70. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination do not provide specific rights accorded only to women or racial
minorities. Those conventions reaffirm the universal human rights of women and
racial minorities, and focus on how discrimination impedes their equal enjoyment of
universal rights and how to ensure that women and racial minorities can enjoy the
human rights guaranteed in other instruments. The conventions are instrumental in
defining the concept of discrimination by identifying specific areas where
discrimination is likely to occur and specifying appropriate measures to eliminate it.
Hybrid model
71. No binding instrument currently exists that specifically integrates social
development and human rights norms. To do that would require the creation of a
new model that combines the two approaches. The existing norms on social
development include the World Programme of Action, the Standard Rules, the
outcomes of United Nations summits and development conferences held in the
1990s, in particular the World Summit for Social Development, and their follow-up
processes, and the United Nations Declaration on Social Progress and Development.
Those normative standards would be reinforced by human rights norms, especially
those relating to non-discrimination in all its facets. That would ensure that persons
with disabilities had equal opportunities to benefit from the progress achieved in the
social and economic development of their countries.
72. The hybrid model would include elements of both the holistic and nondiscrimination
models. The principles of non-discrimination and the application of
all existing human rights to persons with disabilities would form the basis of a
convention, which would also include recommendations to develop and guarantee
special rights in areas specifically relevant to the situations and needs of persons
with disabilities, such as employment, education, treatment and rehabilitation.
73. Further examination of the three models will be required to devise more
options regarding the substantive and procedural aspects of a new convention and its
monitoring procedure.
Notes
1 The normative language excels in its capacity to empower individuals and groups and is also
empowering in relation to economic and social rights as well as civil and political rights.
2 Mexico initially raised the issue of a convention at the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban, South Africa, 31 August-
7 September 2001), which resulted in paragraph 180 of the Programme of Action adopted by the
Conference, which invited the General Assembly to consider elaborating an integral and
comprehensive international convention to protect and promote the dignity of disabled people,
including, especially, provisions that address the discriminatory practices and treatment
affecting them.
3 See http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/hrdisability.htm.
4 See http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_atb.pl?icao/en/atb/fal/disabilities.htm;fal.