UN Human Rights Treaties

United Nations
E/CN.5/2000/3
Economic and Social Council
Distr.: General
17 December 1999
Original: English
Commission for Social Development
Thirty-eighth session
8-17 February 2000
Item 3 (b) of the provisional agenda*
Follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development: Review of relevant
United Nations plans and programmes of action pertaining to the situation of
social groups
Monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules on the
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities
Note by the Secretary-General
1. At its forty-eighth session, the General Assembly adopted the Standard Rules on the
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, contained in the annex to its
resolution 48/96 of 20 December 1993.1 The 22 Rules provide a framework to further the goals
of “equality” and “full participation” of disabled persons in social life and development, set
forth in the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons.2
2. In section IV, paragraph 2, of the Standard Rules, it is stipulated that the Rules shall be
monitored within the framework of the sessions of the Commission for Social Development.
The appointment of a Special Rapporteur to monitor their implementation within the framework
of the Commission for Social Development was also envisaged in that paragraph.
3. In March 1994, the Secretary-General appointed Bengt Lindqvist (Sweden) as Special
Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission for Social Development. The Special Rapporteur
prepared a report for the consideration of the Commission for Social Development at its
thirty-fourth session.3 On the basis of that report and the findings of the Commission’s working
group, the Commission adopted resolution 34/2 entitled “Monitoring the implementation of
the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities”.4 In that
resolution, the Commission took note with appreciation of the report of the Special Rapporteur
and of his recommendations and welcomed his general approach to monitoring, including the
emphasis to be placed on advice and support to States in the implementation of the Rules.
4. At its thirty-fifth session in 1997, the Commission for Social Development considered
the report of the Special Rapporteur on monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules
for the period from 1994 to 1996.5 The Commission took note with appreciation of the valuable
work done by the Special Rapporteur, decided to renew his mandate for a further three years
* E/CN.5/2000/1.
1
E/CN.5/2000/3
and requested the Special Rapporteur to prepare a report for submission to the Commission
at its thirty-eighth session in 2000.6
5. In section IV, paragraph 12, of the Rules, it is further stipulated that at its session
following the end of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, the Commission should examine the
possibility of either renewing that mandate, appointing a new Special Rapporteur or considering
another monitoring mechanism, and should make appropriate recommendations to the Economic
and Social Council. The present mandate of the Special Rapporteur will come to an end in 2000.
The Commission is requested to make its recommendations in that regard to the Economic and
Social Council and the General Assembly.
6. It might be recalled that the activities of the Special Rapporteur and his panel of experts
are funded by voluntary contributions.7 During his two 3-year mandates, from 1994 to 1997 and
from 1998 to 2000, respectively, 10 Governments and the National Council on Disability of the
United States of America8 contributed some US$ 750,000 to a special trust fund account
established by the Secretary-General to finance the activities of the Special Rapporteur. The
Government of Sweden provided financial and in kind support to maintain the office of the
Special Rapporteur. The Government of Canada made a direct financial contribution. Draft
working data on contributions received and expenditures in support of the two mandates are
presented in tables 1 and 2, respectively, as at 15 November 1999, and will be updated to 31
July 2000.
E/CN.5/2000/3
Table 1
Contributions through the United Nations earmarked for the activities of the Special Rapporteur from August 1994 to
July 2000
(United States dollars)
Country
Aug. 1994-
July 1995
Aug. 1995-
July 1996
Aug. 1996-
July 1997
Subtotal
Aug. 1994-
July 1997
Aug. 1997-
July 1998
Aug. 1998-
July 1999
Aug. 1999-
July 2000
Subtotal
Aug. 1998-
July 2000
Total
Aug. 1994-
July 2000
Austria 9 094 8 110 17 204 7 941 7 941 25 145
China 10 000 10 000 10 000 30 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 30 000 60 000
Denmark 100 000 100 000 100 000 100 000 200 000
Finland 10 000 10 000 20 000 0 20 000
Iceland 0 5 000 5 000 5 000
Japan 10 000 10 000 10 000 30 000 9 100 7 500 7 500 24 100 54 100
Netherlands 83 052 83 052 39 695 39 695 122 747
Norway 49 978 25 000 74 978 50 000 50 000 124 978
Philippines 0 3 000 3 000 3 000
United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland 31 146 31 146 0 31 146
National Council on
Disability of the United
States of America 24 500 25 000 49 500 25 000 25 000 74 500
Other 0 0
Redeployment from United
Nations Voluntary Fund on
Disability sub-allotment
account for Working Group
on Standard Rules 30 000 30 000 0 30 000
Total 219 072 75 646 171 162 465 880 47 100 220 136 17 500 284 736 750 616
E/CN.5/2000/3
Table 2
Expenditures relating to earmarked activities of the Special Rapporteur from August 1994 to July 2000
(United States dollars)
Description/activity
Aug. 1994-
July 1995
Aug. 1995-
July 1996
Aug. 1996-
July 1997
Subtotal
Aug. 1994-
July 1997
Aug. 1997-
July 1998
Aug. 1998-
July 1999
Aug. 1999-
July 2000
Subtotal
Aug. 1998-
July 2000
Total
Aug. 1994-
July 2000
Honorarium 20 000 20 000 20 000 60 000 24 000 24 000 24 000 72 000 132 000
Panel of experts meetings 38 273 37 260 48 585 124 118 54 432 54 432 178 550
(New York, 15-17 February 1995)
(New York, 10-14 June 1996)
(Ferney-Voltaire, France,
20-25 May 1997)
(Ferney-Voltaire, France,
20-22 October 1998)
Travel of Special Rapporteur and
his assistant 27 056 47 497 61 773 136 326 14 377 49 773 15 540 79 690 216 016
Subtotal 526 566
Add 13% support 68 454
Total 595 020
7. During the two mandates of the Special Rapporteur, a number of Governments and
organizations of persons with disabilities at national, regional and interregional levels have
submitted requests for co-financing assistance from the Voluntary Fund on Disability for
building national capacities to further implement the Standard Rules. These data for approved
and pipeline projects as at 15 November 1999 are summarized in table 3. The selected project
experiences are discussed in reports of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the
World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons (E/CN.5/1999/5 and A/54/388 and
Add.1).
E/CN.5/2000/3
Table 3
Capacity-building projects related to the Standard Rules supported by United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability
(1997-1999)
Project No. Country/region Short title Implementing agency
Total budget
(United States
$)
Grant
(United States
$)
Africa
MAU/99/D10 Mauritania
(Nouakchott)
Séminaire sous-régional magrébin sur les Règles
(Nouakchott, December 1999)
Action pour le développement social
en Mauritania
99 600 40 100
MOZ/97/D33 Regional Southern
Africa
Workshop on equalization of opportunities:
legislation, gender and the socio-economic situation
of landmine victims, women and children with
disabilities (Maputo, 10-13 August 1999)
Southern Africa Federation of the
Disabled (Zimbabwe)
87 000 28 200
RAF/99/D36* Senegal (Dakar) Seminar for francophone member States of the African
Rehabilitation Institute on “Standard Rules on
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities (Dakar, December 1999)
African Rehabilitation Institute
(Dakar office)
35 168 28 000
ZIM/97/D28 Zimbabwe (Harare) First African Rehabilitation Institute seminar on the
Standard Rules (Harare, 11-13 February 1998)
African Rehabilitation Institute
(Zimbabwe office), in cooperation
with International Disability
Foundation
22 800 13 300
Asia and Pacific
INT/99/D27* Hong Kong Interregional seminar and symposium on
international norms and standards relating to
disability
Equal Opportunities Commission,
Hong Kong, Special Administrative
Region of China, in cooperation
with Hong Kong University,
Faculty of Law, Centre for
Comparative and Public Law
95 000 70 000
Latin America and the Caribbean
MEX/96/D24 Mexico
(Guadalajara)
Workshop on promoting accessible urban
environments in preparation for 1998 World
Assembly of Disabled Peoples’ International at
Guadalajara (Guadalajara, Mexico, 19-25 August
1997)
Disabled Peoples’ International in
cooperation with Municipality of
Guadalajara, State of Nayarit, and
Government of Mexico
70 000 30 000
RLA/97/D17 Dominican
Republic (Santo
Domingo)
Training of trainers in monitoring the
implementation of the Standard Rules in Central
America and the Caribbean (Santo Domingo,
Dominican Republic, 13-18 April 1998)
Disabled Peoples’ International in
cooperation with the Government of
Dominican Republic and the
Associación Dominicana de
Rehabilitación, and with the
participation of the Federación
Nacional Dominicana de
Discapacitados
66 000 49 000
Interregional
INT/98/D30 Berkeley (United
States of America)
Consultative Expert Meeting on Law and Disability
Policies (Berkeley, United States of America, 8-12
December 1998)
World Institute on Disability in
association with University of
California at Berkeley
50 000 35 000
Total 525 568 293 600
* Pending financial approval.
8. The final report of the Special Rapporteur on monitoring the implementation of the
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities during his
second mandate is annexed to the present note.
Notes
1 www.un.org/esa/socdev/dissre00.htm.
2 A/37/351/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1, annex, sect. VIII (www.un.org/esa/socdev/diswpa00.htm).
E/CN.5/2000/3
3 A/50/374, annex.
4 Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1995, Supplement No. 4 (E/1995/24), chap. I,
sect. E.
5 A/52/56, annex (www.un.org/esa/socdev/dismsre0.htm).
6 Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1997, Supplement No. 6 (E/1997/26), chap. I,
sect. A, subsequently adopted as Economic and Social Council resolution 1997/19 of 21 July 1997.
7 General Assembly resolution 48/96, annex, sect. IV, para. 2.
8 The Government of Sweden provides in-kind support for the operations of the Office of the Special
Rapporteur in Stockholm.
E/CN.5/2000/3
7
Annex
Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission
for Social Development on monitoring the implementation of
the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for
Persons with Disabilities on his second mission, 1997-2000
Contents
Paragraphs Page
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
I. Background and framework for mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–19 9
A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–7 9
B. Terms for monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–13 10
C. Guidelines by the Commission for Social Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14–15 11
D. Meetings of the panel of experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–19 11
II. Account of the activities of the Special Rapporteur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20–116 11
A. Promotion of the implementation of the Standard Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21–29 11
B. Third global survey in collaboration with the World Health Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . 30–62 13
C. Progress in human rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63–70 16
D. Cooperation with the Secretariat and other organizations of the United Nations
system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71–83 17
Informal consultative meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84–85 18
E. Cooperation with international non-governmental organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86–91 19
F. Promoting special dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92–116 19
1. Children with disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92–97 19
2. Gender aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98–106 20
3. Persons with developmental and psychiatric disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107–116 21
III. Observations and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–166 22
A. The Standard Rules document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–120 22
B. The role of the Special Rapporteur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121–126 22
C. The contribution of non-governmental organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127–129 23
D. Response by Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130–132 23
E. Outcome of the third survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133–140 24
F. Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 24
G. Human rights development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 25
H. Children with disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143–145 25
I. Gender aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146–148 25
E/CN.5/2000/3
8
J. Persons with developmental and psychiatric disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149–152 25
K. Future involvement by the United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153–166 26
1. Strengthening the United Nations documents on disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–159 26
2. Options for monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160–163 26
3. Improved coordination within the United Nations system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 27
4. Awareness-raising and campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165–166 27
E/CN.5/2000/3
9
Any violation of the fundamental principle of
equality or any discrimination or other negative
differential treatment of persons with disabilities
inconsistent with the United Nations Standard Rules on
the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities is an infringement of the human rights of
persons with disabilities
Commission on Human Rights
Resolution 1998/31
Preface
In my capacity as Special Rapporteur for monitoring of
the implementation of the Standard Rules on Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, I have the honour
to deliver my final report on the second period of monitoring
(1997-2000) to the Commission on Social Development. It has
been a privilege and a stimulating task to act as Special
Rapporteur in this area. I want to express my sincere
appreciation to the Economic and Social Council for showing
confidence in me by renewing my mandate for a second period.
I also would like to thank all those Governments that have
contributed financially to this project, including the
Government of Sweden, which has provided me with office
resources throughout the entire exercise.
From the beginning and during the whole period of
monitoring, I have enjoyed full support from the Under-
Secretary-General of the Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Nitin Desai, and excellent professional advice from
Andrzej Krassowski and his group at the Division for Social
Policy and Development. I have received good cooperation
with a number of United Nations agencies, in particular with
the World Health Organization (WHO), which, in close
cooperation with me, has conducted a global survey on the
implementation of a number of Rules. I also want to express my
appreciation for the excellent work performed by Eva Sagström
in my Swedish office.
One key element in this monitoring exercise has been the
panel of experts, established in 1994 by six major international
non-governmental organizations in the disability field. The
panel members, five men and five women, representing all
regions and with different experiences of disability, have
provided valuable guidance. They have also been very
understanding when limited resources have made it impossible
to pursue all good ideas and initiatives.
Finally I want to thank all those Governments and nongovernmental
organizations that have provided information
for my work.
I. Background and framework for
mission
A. Background
1. Variations in physical, mental and sensory functioning
have always existed among human beings. Yet, people with
functional limitations — disabilities — have always run the risk
of being excluded and marginalized. Throughout the centuries
we have designed and constructed our societies as if persons
with disabilities did not exist, as if all human beings can see,
hear, walk about, understand and react quickly and adequately
to signals from the world around them. This illusion, this
misconception about human nature, this inability to take the
needs of all citizens into account in the development of society
is the main reason for the isolation and exclusion of persons
with disabilities, which we can observe in different forms and
to different degrees all over the world. It will take a long time
to change this pattern of behaviour, which is deeply rooted in
prejudice, fear, shame and lack of understanding of what it
really means to live with a disability. However, international
efforts to improve the living conditions for persons with
disabilities have begun and progress is being made.
2. A more systematic effort to improve living conditions of
persons with disabilities started long ago in the emerging
industrialized nations. During the last 50 years the so-called
advanced welfare states have developed comprehensive
programmes and services in order to meet the needs of persons
with disabilities. For a long time, however, the common
approach of all these programmes was limited to various forms
of support to the individual and were organized as disabilityspecific
services outside the mainstream of society.
3. In the 1960s and 1970s the awareness started to grow,
especially among disabled people in some countries, that
participation in the activities of society could take place only
if the environment and general services and activities were also
designed to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. A new
perspective developed in disability policy, which brought the
lack of access in the surrounding society into focus and
emphasized the right to participation.
4. When the United Nations proclaimed the International
Year of Disabled Persons in 1981, it was an event of historical
importance. The adoption of the theme of “Full Participation
and Equality” for the activities during the Year must be
considered a major political breakthrough for a human rightsbased
perspective in the field of disability.
E/CN.5/2000/3
10
5. The World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled
Persons, which was adopted by the General Assembly by
resolution 37/52 of 3 December 1982, formulated this
philosophy and identified a number of important areas for
action. For the first time in international disability affairs, the
World Programme requested all human rights bodies to give
attention to disability-related problems. Other major
contributions by the World Programme were the presentation
of the concept of the equalization of opportunities as a new
area for intervention and the recognition of the right of
disabled persons and their organizations to participate in
decision-making in matters concerning themselves.
6. The International Year and the World Programme of
Action signalled a process of change and development, which
started during the International Decade of Disabled Persons
(1983-1992) and which continues today, nearly 20 years later.
During the first years of the Decade a lot of attention was
given to disability matters in many countries, however, a few
years later, this interest seemed to fade. This was not ed at the
mid-term evaluation of the Decade, made at an expert meeting
in 1987. In the report from the meeting a number of measures
were suggested to strengthen the leadership role of the United
Nations in implementing the new disability policy. The final
response to this request was the elaboration and adoption of
the United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.
7. The Standard Rules express the same philosophy about
disability as the World Programme of Action. However, there
are some important additions made as a result of experience
gained during the Decade. The responsibility of Governments
of Member States in the implementation process is more clearly
outlined in the Rules. The most obvious new element in the
Standard Rules, however, is the establishment of an active and
separate monitoring mechanism.
B. Terms for monitoring
8. One of the most significant features of the Standard
Rules is that their implementation was to be actively monitored,
as outlined in chapter IV of the Rules, which contains a fairly
detailed description of the monitoring mechanism:
“The purpose of a monitoring mechanism is to further
the effective implementation of the Rules. It will assist
each State in assessing its level of implementation of the
Rules and in measuring its progress. The monitoring
should identify obstacles and suggest suitable measures
that would contribute to the successful implementation
of the Rules.”
9. There are three actors involved in the monitoring task.
The Standard Rules outlined that monitoring should take place
within the framework of the sessions of the Commission for
Social Development, that a special rapporteur should do the
actual monitoring work and report to the Commission and that
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the disability field
should be invited to establish a panel of experts, to be
consulted by the Special Rapporteur.
10. In March 1994 the Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-
Ghali, appointed me Special Rapporteur. In September 1994 a
panel of 10 experts was established by the following six
international organizations: Disabled Peoples’ International,
Inclusion International, Rehabilitation International, World
Blind Union, World Federation of the Deaf and World
Federation of Psychiatric Survivors and Users.
11. The activities during the first monitoring period were
reported to the Commission for Social Development at its
thirty-fifth session (A/52/56, annex).
12. At its session of 1997, the Economic and Social Council,
following the recommendations by the Commission for Social
Development, decided to renew the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur for a further period of three years, from 1997 to 2000
(Council resolution 1997/19). The activities of the Special
Rapporteur were also endorsed by the General Assembly in
resolution 52/82 of 12 December 1997.
13. A precondition for the whole monitoring exercise was
that extrabudgetary funding could be raised for the majority
of the activities. During the first period of monitoring, 11
Governments contributed financially to the project. Altogether
six Governments have contributed during this second period.
The total amount of these contributions is estimated at
$700,000. The special service agreement, between the
Secretariat and the Special Rapporteur, signed in August 1994,
has been kept during the second period of monitoring (1997-
2000). This includes the arrangement that the Special
Rapporteur should run his work from a small office in Sweden
and that the Secretariat would assist with advice and
administrative services.
C. Guidelines by the Commission for Social
Development
14. At its thirty-fifth session, the Commission for Social
Development decided to recommend the renewal of the
mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further period of three
years, so as to make it possible to continue the monitoring of
the implementation of the Standard Rules. In its resolution 35/2,
the Commission:
E/CN.5/2000/3
11
Urged the Secretary-General and Governments to
further the effective implementation of the Standard Rules
and to emphasize the dimension of human rights,
including that dimension for persons with developmental
and psychiatric disabilities
Invited the Special Rapporteur and the Committee
on the Rights of the Child to pursue and enhance their
cooperation to ensure that the rights of children with
disabilities are fully addressed in the Committee’s
reporting process
Requested the Special Rapporteur to pay special
attention to the situation of children with disabilities when
monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules.
15. These guidelines by the Commission have played an
important role in the activities of the Special Rapporteur during
the second period of monitoring. An account of the activities
in connection with each particular aspect can be found under
separate headings of the report.
D. Meetings of the panel of experts
16. During the second monitoring period (1997-2000), three
meetings of the panel of experts were planned. The first
meeting was held in May 1997. Two major subjects were
discussed. The panel analysed the outcome of the first
monitoring period and discussed the activities to be carried out
during the second period. A number of United Nations
agencies participated and informed the panel about their
ongoing activities. The panel members were invited to present
their views and in this way a consultative process was
established.
17. At the second meeting, which was held in October 1998,
some new developments were discussed, including the
adoption of resolution 1998/31 by the Commission on Human
Rights, containing a number of important recommendations
calling for follow-up action from the NGO community, and the
development of a disability policy by the World Bank.
18. Consultations with a number of United Nations agencies
were continued and a preliminary discussion was held
concerning the promotion of the United Nations disability
policy after the end of the second monitoring period.
19. A third meeting of the panel will take place in connection
with the thirty-eighth session of the Commission for Social
Development in February 2000.
II. Account of the activities of the
Special Rapporteur
20. When my mandate was renewed by the Economic and
Social Council on 27 July 1997 (resolution 1997/19), no major
change was made in the terms of reference for my work.
Therefore, in accordance with the guidelines in chapter IV of
the Standard Rules document, I have continued to give advice
to Governments upon request, to participate in seminars and
conferences to discuss the practical implementation of the
Rules and to study the implementation of the Rules worldwide
through the use of surveys. It has to be borne in mind,
however, that these activities had to be carried out within
limited available resources. I would also like to add that it took
nearly one year of the second monitoring period before new
contributions from Member States started to come in.
A. Promotion of the implementation of the
Standard Rules
21. During the second period of monitoring, I visited the
following countries in transition: Mongolia, Armenia, Bulgaria,
Romania and Russia. With the support of the Council of
Europe I have been involved in the planning of a national
conference on disability policy for the Russian Government,
organizations of persons with disabilities and representatives
of all regions of the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, the
Conference has been postponed twice.
22. One serious problem for many of the countries in transition
is that they have not yet developed guidelines for a modern
disability policy. In practically all countries in transition there
are very serious problems in handling the issue of large
institutions for the disabled. Severely disabled people, mainly
persons with intellectual, psychiatric and multiple disabilities,
have spent their whole lives in such institutions. The attention
given to this problem is increasing both in the countries
concerned and among international development cooperation
agencies.
23. Another problem, shared by many countries in transition,
has to do with the relations between existing NGOs. Old
organizations exist for groups of the blind and the deaf,
because they were accepted by the old system as partners in
creating employment opportunities. For other groups of
disabled persons, new organizations are being formed and
there are sometimes difficulties in developing good working
relations between these different organizations.
24. Since 1997, I have also visited a number of developing
countries to discuss disability policy, among others, Thailand,
E/CN.5/2000/3
12
Jordan, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico and Costa Rica. The
programmes I have seen during my visits have varied
considerably. In some cases our dialogue has concerned rather
basic issues of disability policy. In other cases new laws had
been adopted and our discussions dealt with issues of
implementation. In some instances I have formulated
recommendations in a follow-up letter to the President or the
Prime Minister of the country concerned. These letters have
often played a role in the development of new measures.
25. During this second period I have also participated at
international conferences, some of which have raised new
subjects or dealt with the Standard Rules from a specific
perspective. In 1997, I participated at a conference organized
jointly by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific and Rehabilitation International. I was invited to
speak at the “Meeting of senior officials to mark the mid-point
of the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons (1993-
2000)” (Seoul, 26-29 September 1997). In my statement, I
pointed to the fact that the Agenda for Action, which forms
the basic document for activities during the Decade of
Disabled Persons, and the Standard Rules were elaborated
simultaneously. They are of the same spirit but serve
somewhat different purposes. The Standard Rules are a set of
guidelines while the Agenda for Action mainly identifies a
number of important areas for development. The two could,
and in my opinion, should be combined in national efforts to
improve living conditions for persons with disabilities.
Everything should be done to avoid duplication of work and
the two monitoring mechanisms should exchange information
more systematically.
26. In 1998, I participated at a world forum on human rights
and blind people, held in Uruguay (Montevideo, 16-18
November 1998). In my statement I pointed to the new and
important opportunities for strengthening the rights of persons
with disabilities emerging through the developments in the
field of human rights in recent years. I emphasized the key role
that has to be played by organizations of persons with
disabilities in spearheading this development. I also used the
opportunity to congratulate representatives of countries on
the American continent for the progress they have achieved
in drafting a regional convention on the rights of disabled
people.
27. In January 1999, an Africa seminar on development
cooperation, disability and human rights was organized by
Disabled People South Africa and the Swedish Organization
of Handicapped-International Aid Foundation (SHIA). The
conference adopted a resolution proposing an African decade
of disabled people during the years from 2000 to 2009.
28. In my speech I gave an account of the main recent
events in the human rights area. I also permitted myself to make
the following suggestions concerning the issue of an African
decade of disabled people:
(a) The Governments of Africa should recognize,
support and actively participate in the programmes of the
decade;
(b) The organizations of disabled people must be
directly and actively involved at all stages and levels of the
programme;
(c) There must be an efficient planning and
coordinating function for the programme;
(d) Governments should include disability needs in
their general negotiations for development cooperation;
(e) There should be an agreed overall programme for
the decade;
(f) Sufficient financial backing for the core activities
of the programme must be obtained;
(g) The mobilization of disabled people should form
a core activity within the programme.
29. A Pan-Arab symposium on the Standard Rules was
co-organized in Amman by the Jordanian Government and the
Jordanian Swedish Medical Association from 18 to
20 September 1997. Representatives of Governments,
professionals and NGOs from 12 Arab countries participated.
A statement was adopted in order to guide the development
in the different countries. The following recommendations
might be mentioned:
(a) Governments should proclaim their commitment
to achieve the goal of full participation and equality for
persons with disabilities;
(b) Governments should adopt national procedural
work plans for the implementation of the Standard Rules
through the ministries concerned and other actors;
(c) Governments should recognize the role of
organizations of disabled people in representing their groups
in matters concerning them;
(d) A national council should be established in each
country;
(e) Governments should recognize community-based
rehabilitation to involve the local community in raising the
standards of disabled persons.
B. Third global survey in collaboration with the
World Health Organization
E/CN.5/2000/3
13
30. The first four Rules in the Standard Rules document are
gathered under the heading “Preconditions for Equal
Participation”. The message conveyed is that measures in
these areas must be taken because they constitute necessary
measures to enable the individual to participate actively in the
community. Three of these Rules, medical care, rehabilitation
and support services (including the provision of devices and
equipment) are areas of responsibility for the World Health
Organization (WHO).
31. In 1998, in discussions between the panel of experts,
representatives of WHO and myself, it was agreed that a
survey on the implementation of the Rules in these areas
should be conducted. WHO offered to make the survey.
32. Information was gathered in 1999 through a
questionnaire, sent to all 191 Governments of States members
of WHO and to more than 600 national NGOs in the disability
field. The information collected covers issues related to the
following four Rules: Rule 2 — medical care, Rule 3 —
rehabilitation, Rule 4 — support services and Rule 19 —
personnel training. The questionnaire, consisting of 35
questions, was distributed in April 1999.
33. The objective of the study was twofold: to identify
government policies regarding medical care, rehabilitation,
support services and personnel training and to identify
strategies adopted and problems encountered when working
in the field of medical care and rehabilitation of persons with
disabilities.
34. Respondents were asked to answer the questionnaire in
order to identify the official policy of the country. In total, 104
Governments responded, a result which must be deemed very
satisfactory.
35. Replies were received from countries representing
different regions of the world: 17 from the Americas, 25 from
Europe, 20 from the Western Pacific region, 4 from the South-
East Asian region, 11 from the Eastern Mediterranean region
and 27 from Africa.
36. A classification according to socio-economic criteria of
the Governments responding shows that there are 18
developed-market economies, 9 countries with economies in
transition and 77 developing countries, of which 24 are least
developed countries.
37. Replies were received from 115 NGOs. A classification
of NGO responses is as follows: 18 responses were received
from member organizations of Disabled Peoples’ International;
28 responses from member organizations of Inclusion
International; 24 responses from member organizations of
Rehabilitation International; 23 responses from member
organizations of the World Blind Union; 14 responses from
member organizations of the World Federation of the Deaf; and
8 responses from member organizations of the World
Federation of Psychiatric Survivors and Users. The total
number of countries covered by responses from Governments
and NGOs is 130.
38. Government information was provided by the division
or unit within the ministry responsible for medical care,
rehabilitation and support services to persons with disabilities
(usually the ministries of health and/or social affairs). Although
the constraints imposed by this method of compiling
information — which presupposes that the survey will be
answered by the most well informed official within the field and
that the official will take the time to find answers elsewhere in
the event that he/she does not have the answer — the survey
represents a unique distillation of information on policy and
practice worldwide. It will hopefully be of assistance to policy
makers, administrators, rehabilitation specialists and
representatives of organizations in the disability field. The
study was carried out in close cooperation with my office and
will provide a welcome and significant contribution to our
knowledge and understanding of the world situation. The full
report on the outcome of the survey will be published by WHO
in 2000.
39. The presentation in this report, which was made while
the analysis of the outcome of the survey was still under way,
consists of a selected number of more general questions on
each Rule. They mainly concern to what extent services in the
defined areas exist, the involvement of governments and other
entities and the influence of persons with disabilities and their
organizations in these services. Unfortunately, it was not
possible to take replies from national NGOs into account.
Medical care
40. According to the opening sentence of the Rule on
medical care, “States should ensure the provision of effective
medical care to persons with disabilities”. The first question
concerned the extent to which States comply with this
recommendation. An overwhelming majority of Member States
(99 of 104) provide services to persons with disabilities.
Medical care for children with disabilities is included within the
general medical care system in 90 countries.
41. According to the first paragraph of the Rule on medical
care, “States should work towards the provision of
programmes run by multidisciplinary teams of professionals
for early detection, assessment and treatment of impairment”.
42. The great majority of countries include prevention and
treatment of impairment and rehabilitation techniques in the
medical care system and other programmes. Less common are
E/CN.5/2000/3
14
programmes for counselling of parents and early detection and
diagnosis. Fifteen countries do not have such programmes.
43. Another question concerned the degree of involvement
of organizations of persons with disabilities in the planning
and evaluation of these programmes. In the majority of
countries (59 of 103), organizations of disabled people are
sometimes involved. In only three countries, organizations of
persons with disabilities are always involved, whereas in 12
countries organizations of disabled people are never involved
in planning and evaluation of medical care programmes. In 29
countries those organizations are often involved.
44. One question requested information as to whether
persons with disabilities receive regular medical treatment to
preserve or improve their level of functioning and, in countries
where they do not, what criteria determines the provision of
such care. In 85 of 103 countries, persons with disabilities
receive regular medical treatment. In the 18 countries where
medical treatment is not provided, the following reasons were
indicated: lack of specific programmes (16), lack of staff (12),
lack of training (8), negative societal attitudes (9) and economic
constraints in the family (12).
45. One question concerned the issue of funding of medical
care. Responses indicated that patients in 31 countries pay the
full costs themselves. In the remaining countries, medical care
is either provided free of charge or covered by mixed systems
with patient payment, state subsidies or social insurance. In
the 62 countries responding to the question about social
insurance coverage of medical care expenditures, the following
might be observed: there are 22 countries in which 20 per cent
or less of the population are covered by social insurance
schemes; and in 27 countries between 81 to 100 per cent of the
population are covered by social insurance schemes. The
discernible pattern is that when medical care is paid by social
insurance, it is either for a small portion of the population
(often government-employed individuals) or it is for almost
everybody.
46. One question concerned the provision of medical care
in villages and poor urban areas. Of the 102 countries which
responded, 97 indicated that services are provided in these
areas. Of these 97 countries, 88 indicated that they provide
primary health care, and 44 indicated that they provide medical
care through community-based programmes.
47. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate what
services are provided to facilitate information and
communication on medical care for persons with disabilities.
According to the responses received, the most frequent
service provided is easy-reading information (62 of 104
responding countries). Fifty countries provide sign language
interpretation and one third of the countries provide
information in Braille of information on tape.
Rehabilitation
48. In a first general question, information was requested as
to what extent national rehabilitation programmes are provided
in Member States. Seventy-three of the 102 countries which
responded indicated that national rehabilitation programmes
exist.
49. Fifty-one countries (of 104 responding) provide
community-based rehabilitation programmes at local levels.
Nearly as many provide it at district levels. Thirteen countries
indicated that they have no community-based rehabilitation.
Concerning institutional rehabilitation, responses indicated the
following: 74 countries have rehabilitation institutions at the
national level, 56 at the provincial level, 46 at the district level
and 22 at the local level. In eight countries no institutional
rehabilitation programmes exist.
50. One question concerned which groups receive
rehabilitation services. Generally, the responses indicated that
rehabilitation programmes are available for many groups in
most countries. They are most frequently provided to persons
with mobility impairments (99 of 104 responding), hearing
impairments (90), visual impairments (89), intellectual
disabilities (86) and to the deaf (84). It is worth observing that
even for learning problems (e.g. dyslexia), rehabilitation
services are provided in a considerable number of countries
(69). There are rehabilitation services in as many as 74
countries for persons with mental illness.
51. These high frequencies are in themselves encouraging,
but it must be added that they tell little about the actual
availability for all those persons in the different groups who
are in need of rehabilitation. The availability may differ from
covering all who are in need to a small fraction of the group
concerned. It must also be borne in mind that the figures above
indicate that no services are available in a considerable number
of countries: for instance, for persons with hearing impairments
in 14 countries and for those with visual impairments in 15
countries.
52. One question concerned in which ways persons with
disabilities, their families and their organiz ations are involved
in rehabilitation services. According to the information
received, persons with disabilities are most often involved
through community-based rehabilitation and as trained
teachers, instructors and counsellors and are least involved
in the formulation and evaluation of rehabilitation programmes.
The same pattern is to be found concerning the families of
persons with disabilities, though families are more frequently
involved in the above-mentioned activities than persons with
E/CN.5/2000/3
15
disabilities themselves. Regarding the organizations of persons
with disabilities, the reverse pattern emerged. Organizations
are most frequently involved in the design and organization
of rehabilitation services and in the formulation and evaluation
of rehabilitation programmes. Representatives of organizations
are also most involved as trained teachers. It must also be
noted that in a great number of countries, organizations are not
involved at all. This is also the case, and even to a greater
extent, for persons with disabilities and their families.
Regarding community-based rehabilitation, organizations
participate to the same degree as persons with disabilities —
in 44 countries they take part in such rehabilitation.
Support services
53. In the present report we have selected only questions
concerning the provision devices and equipment (crutches,
prostheses, hearing aids, visual aids, etc.) to persons with
disabilities.
54. Information was requested about government
involvement in the provision of such devices. In 87 of the 96
countries providing information on this issue, Governments
are involved in the provision of devices and equipment. This
high level of involvement is encouraging, but at the same time
it must be observed that this frequency of involvement does
not indicate to what extent persons with disabilities in need of
devices and equipment really get services.
55. A question concerning the funding for such devices and
equipment gave the following result. One hundred and four
countries responded. The most common way of funding this
service is through shared responsibility between government
ministries and persons with disabilities. In 28 countries
government ministries or municipalities pay fully for such
devices and equipment, in nine countries the costs are paid
fully by social insurance schemes, in 18 countries they are paid
fully by persons with disabilities themselves and in 13
countries NGOs pay fully for assistive devices and equipment.
In 32 countries government ministries or municipalities do not
pay at all for the provision of these devices and equipment.
56. Concerning what kinds of devices and equipment are
provided by Governments, the outcome is the following: the
most frequently provided aids are crutches (87 of 104
responding); in 83 countries prostheses/orthoses are provided;
in 77 countries wheelchairs are provided; in 64 countries
hearing devices are provided; in 62 countries visual aids are
provided; in 48 countries devices for daily living are provided;
and in 23 countries computers are provided. Devices for people
with mobility impairments are most frequently provided,
followed by equipment for persons with hearing or sight
impairments. Naturally, there is a cost element involved in the
different levels of provision of various kinds of equipment. One
surprising result is that devices for daily living are not
provided by more than half the number of countries providing
information.
57. Information was also requested concerning the provision
of interpretation services for hearing impaired people: 67 of the
100 countries providing information responded that
interpretation services are provided.
58. Information was requested concerning the degree of
involvement by persons with disabilities and/or their
organizations in the planning of support services. In almost
one third of the countries responding to the question, persons
with disabilities and/or their organizations are not involved in
this process. In 68 of the 99 countries providing information,
persons with disabilities are involved in the planning of
support services.
Personnel training
59. The first question concerning personnel training was
whether Governments ensure that all authorities/agencies
providing services in the disability field give training to their
personnel. Of 96 responding Governments, 64 indicated that
training is not ensured.
60. Between 76 and 47 Governments indicated that disability
is a component in the professional training of different groups
of staff (physiotherapists, nurses, social workers etc.) in the
areas of medical care and rehabilitation.
61. Forty-three Governments (of 92 responding) indicated
that they consult with organizations of persons with
disabilities when developing staff training programmes.
62. The most remarkable result from this part of the study
is that one third of the Governments that participated in the
study do not ensure that authorities/agencies providing
services in the disability field offer training to their personnel.
C. Progress in human rights
63. One of the most important areas of development during
recent years concerns the human rights of persons with
disabilities. As Special Rapporteur on Disability of the
Commission for Social Development, I have been invited by
the Commission on Human Rights to participate in this
process. Before giving an account of the recent events, I
should like to describe the process, which had already started
in connection with the International Year of Disabled Persons.
64. The World Programme of Action concerning Disabled
Persons (A/37/351/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1, sect. VIII) includes
E/CN.5/2000/3
16
a section on human rights and disability. The following
recommendations are of particular interest:
“Organizations and bodies involved in the United
Nations system responsible for the preparation and
administration of international agreements, covenants
and other instruments that might have a direct or indirect
impact on disabled people should ensure that such
instruments fully take into account the situation of
persons who are disabled. (para. 164)
“Particular conditions may exist which inhibit the
ability of disabled persons to exercise the human rights
and freedoms recognized as universal to all mankind.
Consideration should be given, by the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, to such conditions. (para.
166)
“Incidents of gross violation of basic human
rights, including torture, can be a cause of mental and
physical disability. The Commission on Human Rights
should give consideration, inter alia, to such violations
for the purpose of taking appropriate ameliorative
action.” (para. 168)
65. On 29 August 1984, the Subcommission on Prevention
of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities adopted
resolution 1984/20 in which it decided to appoint a Special
Rapporteur, Leandro Despouy, to conduct a comprehensive
study on the relationship between human rights and disability.
His report, Human Rights and Disabled Persons, was
published in 1993 (E.92.XIV.4). Mr. Despouy made it clear that
disability is a human rights concern, in which the United
Nations monitoring bodies should be involved. Among his
recommendations the following might be mentioned:
(a) After the Decade has ended, the question of
human rights and disability should be kept on the agendas of
the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the
Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission as an
item of constant concern and ongoing attention;
(b) The United Nations Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights should assume the supervisory task
in the disability field. The Committee should receive a special
mandate for this purpose.
66. In 1994, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights assumed this responsibility by issuing a General
Comment No. 5, in which the Committee made an interesting
analysis of disability as a human rights issue.
67. The General Comment stated:
The Covenant does not refer explicitly to persons
with disabilities. Nevertheless, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights recognizes that all human beings are
born free and equal in dignity and rights and, since the
Covenant’s provisions apply fully to all members of
society, persons with disabilities are clearly entitled to
the full range of rights recognized in the Covenant. In
addition, insofar as special treatment is necessary, States
parties are required to take appropriate measures, to the
maximum extent of their available resources, to enable
such persons to seek to overcome any disadvantages,
in terms of the enjoyment of the rights specified in the
Covenant, flowing from their disability. Moreover, the
requirement contained in article 2 of the Covenant that
the rights ‘enunciated ... will be exercised without
discrimination of any kind’ based on certain specified
grounds ‘or other status’ clearly applies to
discrimination on the grounds of disability.
68. At its fifty-fourth session in 1998, the Commission on
Human Rights decided to discuss issues relating to human
rights of persons with disabilities. I had the opportunity to
speak on the item. In my statement I made a series of
recommendations, which to a large extent were taken into
account by the Commission. A number of Member States and
NGOs also contributed to the discussion.
69. As a result of the deliberations, the Commission adopted
resolution 1998/31, in which the Commission made a series of
statements and recommendations of great importance for future
developments in this area.
70. In the first paragraph of the resolution, the Commission
recognized the Standard Rules as an evaluative instrument to
be used to assess the degree of compliance with human rights
standards concerning disabled people. It encouraged NGOs
in the disability field to provide relevant information to the
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights and to avail themselves of the technical assistance of
the Office of the High Commissioner to assist them to function
effectively in the human rights sphere. In the resolution, the
Commission also encouraged all the treaty bodies to monitor
the compliance of States with their commitments in order to
ensure full enjoyment of rights by persons with disabilities and
called upon Governments to cover fully the question of human
rights of persons with disabilities, when reporting under the
relevant United Nations human rights instruments. The
Commission invited the Special Rapporteur of the Commission
for Social Development to address the Commission on Human
Rights at its fifty-sixth session, which will take place in 2000.
Finally, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to
report biennially to the General Assembly on the progress of
efforts to ensure the full recognition and enjoyment of human
rights of persons with disabilities.
E/CN.5/2000/3
17
D. Cooperation with the Secretariat and other
organizations of the United Nations system
71. A special unit within the Division for Social Policy and
Development of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs
has the mandate, given earlier in connection with the
International Year of Disabled Persons, to serve as the focal
point on disability within the United Nations system. The unit
is currently strengthening this role by building an Internet
information base and by launching a project to create a library
by compiling information on international norms and
standards. It is also the task of the unit to make an appraisal
and evaluation of the World Programme of Action on a
quinquennial basis and to provide support to me in my
monitoring task. The unit is also responsible for the United
Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability which co-finances
catalytic projects in developing and transition countries.
72. The involvement in disability by the Statistics Division
of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs has grown
during the last five years. The work now is mainly directed
towards the two important areas of improving statistical
concepts, methods and data collection programmes and
compiling and disseminating statistical data on disability.
73. As can be seen in the report by the Secretary-General to
the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly, many United
Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies are also
involved in the disability field.
74. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the
International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
and WHO are involved in policy development in their
respective fields of competence. My impression is that the
Standard Rules serve as a basic policy document in this
process. In the case of WHO, the new policy document,
currently being drafted, explicitly builds on the Rules. In the
comparison I have made of the contents of the Rules and
documents such as the Salamanca Statement of 1994 and ILO
Convention 159, I have found that the language sometimes
differs but the goals and principles are identical.
75. All of the above organizations have a considerable
number of country projects financed through a variety of
governmental or inter-governmental funding mechanisms. In
some cases they cooperate in country projects, but to my
knowledge this does not occur regularly.
76. In my work I have cooperated with these United Nations
entities in many different ways. Local representatives have
often participated in the discussions during my country
missions. In some cases I have made visits to the headquarters
of the organizations to discuss certain issues. As I mentioned
earlier, they have made presentations at the two panel
meetings, held in 1997 and 1998. The Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights also participated
in the meetings.
77. During the International Decade of Disabled Persons and
for a number of years subsequently, there was a special interagency
mechanism for coordination and exchange of
experience within the United Nations system. As part of
reforms of the subsidiary bodies of the system’s
Administrative Committee on Coordination, the formal yearly
meetings were typically replaced by more informal ad hoc
mechanisms. A core group, consisting of ILO, UNESCO,
UNICEF and WHO, has been meeting informally. During recent
years the group has grown. I have been invited to take part and
have done so when possible.
78. In my former report to the Commission for Social
Development I stated that no serious efforts were made by key
international development cooperation agencies to integrate
disability measures into their mainstream activities posing the
risk that disability, once again, will be left out or marginalized
in such development programmes. During the three past years,
an encouraging development has begun.
79. In March 1998, I participated in a seminar on disability
policy organized by the Human Development Department of
the World Bank. Some 30 people from the bank staff (including
the head of the Human Development Department) participated
in the discussions. At the seminar we were informed that the
Bank was initiating a process to develop a disability policy
within the organization. Since then, many new initiatives have
been taken and representatives of the World Bank have started
to participate more actively in international disability affairs.
80. According to a recent report, the basic United Nations
documents provide a framework for the activities of the World
Bank on disability issues. To effectively implement disability
interventions, the World Bank relies on partnership with other
agencies, which is fostered through involvement in appropriate
conferences and working groups. The Bank recognizes the
economic and social value of increasing the participation of
disabled citizens in society and has a growing number of
projects in this area. A directory of Bank projects has been
created and will be updated periodically since it is expected
that the number of projects will continue to grow.
81. The World Bank has recently taken a number of
initiatives to expand the incorporation of persons with
disabilities in the World Bank’s work and to help countries to
implement their own goals related to access, inclusion, and
E/CN.5/2000/3
18
poverty reduction. As part of the preparations for the next
World Development Report, which will focus on poverty, the
Bank is preparing an analysis of the linkages between disability
and poverty in the developing world.
82. In order to increase the quality of World Bank support
to disabled people in developing countries, the Bank is
collecting information on good practice in development
assistance. Other measures taken to expand the incorporation
of persons with disabilities in the Bank’s work include the
development of an internal working group around the theme
of disability.
83. Finally, it should be added that both the Asian
Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank
have recently initiated measures to improve their handling of
disability matters.
Informal consultative meeting
84. As a joint initiative by WHO and UNDP, an informal
consultative meeting was organized in June 1999. The overall
objective of the meeting was to discuss the development of
a more effective, collaborative approach to disability that will
integrate the broad areas of disability prevention, rehabilitation
and human rights issues. Representatives of United Nations
agencies, including the World Bank as well as a selected
number of NGOs active in the field of disabili t y, participated.
I accepted an invitation to chair the meeting.
85. After discussions concerning the global situation,
present activities in relation to dis ability, rights, needs and
opportunities for global action and current barriers and means
and structure for future collaboration, the meeting agreed on
the following appraisal of the situation:
(a) Extensive progress was made during the 1990s,
both politically and operationally, but disability has not yet
obtained a prominent place on the international development
agenda. This is surprising given the large and growing number
of people with disabilities;
(b) There is a need for improved data on disability.
Better methodologies, new tools for data collection and
analysis should be developed and applied;
(c) There is also a need for each United Nations
organization to make disability a higher priority;
(d) Although the United Nations and its NGO partners
have supported useful activities, including joint activities
between various organizations, their efforts remain fragmented
at country level and lack follow-up mechanisms;
(e) Need and interest was expressed in developing a
common inter-agency agenda in support of “disabilityfriendly”
policies and programmes at national level, with
defined components and inputs from each organization;
(f) Recognition and interest was expressed in working
through the resident United Nations coordinator system at
country level;
(g) Participants expressed an interest in facilitating
inter-agency collaboration at global level, through an
appropriate mechanism, without adding an additional
administrative layer and impairing the mandate of each
organization concerned;
(h) The possibility of creating a subcommittee on
disability within the Administrative Committee on Coordination
should be explored. It could serve as the inter-agency forum,
which would ensure a more prominent and visible place for
disability.
E. Cooperation with international
non-governmental organizations
86. One of the most characteristic features of this United
Nations monitoring exercise is the close cooperation with the
major international NGOs in the disability field. During the
drafting of the Standard Rules in the beginning of the 1990s,
these international NGOs were already directly involved. I
described their active participation in my report to this
Commission in 1997.
87. The six organizations that responded to the invitation
from the United Nations and formed the panel of experts in
1994 have played a special role within the project. It should,
however, be mentioned that a number of other organizations
have also actively supported and used the Rules in their work.
88. The six organizations have a network of more than 600
national affiliates. These national organizations have had an
important role during my visits to countries. I have often
communicated with them in preparing my visits. They have
participated in discussions with governments and I have tried
to involve them in the follow-up action resulting from my visit s .
89. In recent reports to my office, the six organizations have
informed me that they continue to use the Standard Rules
actively in their work. The user guides and other educational
material in connection with the Rules, which were developed
during the first monitoring period, are still in use. During this
second period, new conferences and seminars for organization
officers and members have been organized. There are examples
of organizations that have appointed special officers to
coordinate the work with the Rules. Some of the organizations
E/CN.5/2000/3
19
report that they use certain aspects of the Rules in their efforts
to improve services or access.
90. The organizations also report that translation of the
Rules into more national languages continues. The World
Blind Union is serving its member organizations with Braille
versions of the Rules in a number of languages and Inclusion
International reports that the Rules are available in easy-toread
versions in several languages.
91. Finally it should be mentioned that, during the period
from 1997 to 1999, the International Disability Foundation ran
an advocacy and action programme on the implementation of
the Standard Rules. This programme was conceived by the
Foundation to create opportunities for national disability
organizations to work for the implementation of the Rules. The
programme has made financial and technical resources
available for disability organizations in six African countries.
The responsibility for each country programme is in the hands
of a steering committee, composed of representatives of
national disability organizations. Funds for this programme
have come from the Danish International Development Agency
(DANIDA) and the International Disability Foundation.
F. Promoting special dimensions
1. Children with disabilities
92. On 6 October 1997, the Committee on the Rights of the
Child held a General Discussion Day in Geneva. In an outline
prepared for the event, the Committee stressed that throughout
history children with disabilities had been, and in many
societies still were, denied access to education, family life,
adequate health care, opportunities for play or for training and
the right to participate in normal child activities. In spite of the
fact that these children were experiencing a form of social
exclusion representing a denial of their basic rights as
enshrined in the Convention, their plight rarely figured high
on the national or international agenda and they tended to
remain invisible.
93. A number of Committee members and representatives of
United Nations agencies, including the World Bank and a
number of international NGOs, participated. I was invited to
make a presentation from my perspective as Special Rapporteur
in the field of disability policy. In my statement I made a
comparison between the Convention on the Rights of the Child
and the Standard Rules. I pointed to the different legal status
of the two documents. I emphasized both differences and the
complementarity of them. The Convention is an important
statement of principles protecting the rights of all children,
including children with disabilities. The Standard Rules is a
whole document on disability policy, containing a much higher
degree of specification and giving more guidance on what
should be done and how it should be done. Measures to
combat exclusion and bad conditions must be taken in two
main areas — support to the individual and measures to create
accessibility. I further pointed out that the Convention is rather
vague in its support for the accessibility dimension.
94. Finally, I made the following suggestions for more
developed cooperation between myself, as Special Rapporteur,
and the Committee:
(a) Discussion of further action concerning children
with disabilities on the basis of an analysis of reports from
Member States on the implementation of the Convention;
(b) Further surveys on the implementation of the
Standard Rules should be operated in consultation with the
Committee on the Rights of the Child;
(c) Cooperation to eliminate discrimination of children
with disabilities in mainstream education programmes;
(d) Cooperation to develop information about good
practice;
(e) Consideration of the possibility of involving the
panel of experts, established as part of the monitoring
mechanism in connection with the Standard Rules.
95. At its 419th meeting, the Committee on the Rights of the
Child adopted a number of key issues and recommendations,
and, inter alia, brought up the issue of establishing a working
group to prepare a plan of action.
96. Acting on the recommendat ion to consider a working
group, Disability Awareness in Action (a collaborative project
between a number of disability organizations) took the
initiative of establishing a working group to consider further
the many issues brought up during the general discussion day.
The working group consists of international organizations of
disabled people (World Blind Union, World Federation of the
Deaf, Inclusion International and Disabled Peoples’
International), organizations working for the rights of the child
(International Save the Children Alliance, Child Rights Centre)
and one member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
I have agreed to chair the working group.
97. The group has held two meetings during 1999. Among
the various activities discussed in the working group, the
following might be mentioned:
(a) Generally, the main purpose of the working group
is to provide more information and better tools for monitoring
the situation of disabled children within the work of the
Committee on the Rights of the Child;
E/CN.5/2000/3
20
(b) The group considers the possibility of organizing
four regional seminars to collect more information about the
situation and to give more visibility in those regions to children
with disabilities;
(c) A letter to United Nations agencies to find out
about their planned policies concerning children with
disabilities;
(d) A discussion has started within the working group
concerning the possibility of drafting a general comment to be
considered by the Committee on the Rights of the Child;
(e) The issue of collecting examples of good practice
has been raised and the group will find ways of promoting this.
2. Gender aspects
98. The Beijing Platform for Action includes a number of
suggestions and references concerning women and girls with
disabilities. In the follow-up work in connection with this
document, carried out by the Commission on the Status of
Women, representatives of women in the international
disability NGOs have participated each year since 1996. As a
result, all reports from the Commission thus far have included
references to women with disabilities.
99. In 1997 a leadership seminar on gender issues was
organized in Sweden with participants from many developing
countries. One main objective was awareness-raising and
learning to identify discrimination.
100. In my statement I analysed the Standard Rules from a
gender perspective as outlined below.
101. The general presentation in the Rules is done with the
understanding that the suggested guidelines and policies
concern all people with disabilities, irrespective of race, gender
or age. This interpretation follows the tradition used in the field
of human rights.
102. There are a few direct references to the gender
dimension. The most general one is the sentence, in paragraph
15 of the introduction: “The purpose of the Rules is to ensure
that girls, boys, women and men with disabilities, as members
of their societies, may exercise the same rights and obligations
as others”.
103. The gender perspective is mentioned in some other
instances in the introduction and the preamble. In Rule 4 on
support services, Rule 6 on education and Rule 9 on family life
and pers onal integrity special attention is drawn to the needs
of girls and women with disabilities.
104. The Standard Rules must always be related to the
concrete situation in each country. In so doing, there is a need
for interpretation and for placing emphasis or focus on certain
conditions or circumstances. It is, for instance, often necessary
to emphasize the need to include special measures for disabled
women in adult education, medical care, rehabilitation and the
provision of technical aids.
105. It is very important to combine the provisions of the
Standard Rules and those contained in the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
This possibility must be further developed through
cooperation between the appropriate bodies within the United
Nations, the specialized agencies, international NGOs and all
concerned entities at the national level.
106. Finally, in reply to the question on the gender dimension,
of course, one would have wished for a more clearly spelt out
gender dimension in the Standard Rules. However, by using
all the different means that I have pointed out, I am sure that
we can also make it a strong and useful tool in the struggle for
empowerment and full participation by disabled women in their
societies.
3. Persons with developmental and psychiatric
disabilities
107. In its resolution 35/2, the Commission for Social
Development emphasized the need to study the dimension of
human rights for persons with developmental and psychiatric
disabilities. The reason for particularly focussing on the
situation of these groups is, of course, that they are among the
most neglected and marginalized in society. There are many
similarities in the situation for persons with developmental and
psychiatric disabilities. Both groups have often been hidden
away, either in families or in institutions, and affected by
negative attitudes and prejudice.
108. In my second global survey on the implementation of the
Standard Rules, there was a section on the protection of the
human rights of disabled people. One general conclusion
drawn from this investigation is that there are serious problems
in the human rights area, for instance in important fields such
as the right to vote and stand for election, the right to appear
before a court of law and the right to marriage and to property.
Obviously the people most affected were those with
developmental and psychiatric disabilities.
109. However, in the work for the rights of these two groups
there are also differences. In the field of developmental
disabilities, there is a strong and well developed world
organization — Inclusion International. This organization
effectively advocates for the rights of persons with
developmental disabilities and conducts many different
projects around the world to improve the situation both in
developing countries and in countries in transition. There are
programmes to mobilize families in so-called parent action
E/CN.5/2000/3
21
groups. Community-based rehabilitation is used to develop
family support in order for families to be able to keep children
with developmental disabilities at home. The issue of
improving the situation of people with developmental
disabilities living in large institutions is an issue in many
different countries. One way to handle this is to develop family
support as an alternative to admission to such institutions.
Another way is to improve the living conditions, materially and
socially, for the people living in those institutions.
110. During this second period of monitoring I have
participated in discussions concerning the situation of persons
with developmental disabilities in several ways. I have been
invited to attend conferences held by Inclusion International
and have worked with its representatives in a number of
countries, often in seminars with Governments and national
organizations.
111. It has been much more difficult to find forums for the
discussion of matters concerning persons with psychiatric
disabilities. After the Panel meeting in May 1998, I discussed
with representatives of Psychiatric Users how to bring the
rights of people with psychiatric disabilities more into focus
in my work. We identified two major opportunities, which were
both scheduled for September 1999. One was a conference in
Chennai, India, which was one of the first international
initiatives where the situation of people with disabilities from
mental illness was discussed in the light of the Standard Rules.
The other event was the Congress of the World Federation for
Mental Health where it was possible to get a number of users
together to discuss how to develop a world organization of
psychiatric users.
112. In my statement at the Chennai conference I commented
on what the international community had to offer in the form
of guidelines for improving the living conditions of persons
with psychiatric disabilities. The Principles for the Protection
of Persons with Mental Illness and Improvement of Mental
Health Care, contained in the annex to General Assembly
resolution 46/119 of 17 December 1991, provides clear
guidelines concerning the protection of fundamental rights and
freedoms of persons with mental illness. It also provides
concrete guidelines for the establishment of mental health
facilities and care, although some users do not agree on the
recommendations concerning involuntary treatment and
detention.
113. In the area of measures for the active participation of
people with psychiatric disabilities in the societies they belong
to, the document does not give any concrete guidance. In our
work for this group it therefore seems necessary to use both
these principles and the Standard Rules as a basis.
114. In the Standard Rules all recommendations and
guidelines are valid for all groups of disabled people. The
concept of disability, which is applied in the Rules, makes this
quite clear. Let me quote the following from paragraph 17 of
the introduction: “The term ‘disability’ summarizes a great
number of different functional limitations occurring in any
population in any country of the world. People may be disabled
by physical, intellectual or sensory impairment, medical
conditions or mental illness. Such impairments, conditions or
illnesses may be permanent or transitory in nature”.
115. It is obvious that the recommendations and guidelines
of the Standard Rules are more concrete concerning other
groups than mentally disabled people. Actually, there are few
direct references to people with mental disabilities in the Rules.
116. At the Congress of the World Federation for Mental
Health held in Chile in September 1999, a number of users
gathered to prepare a plan of action for the establishment of
a world organization with stronger representation than today.
According to this plan, preparations have been made to
mobilize users and survivors all over the world. The intention
is to hold the founding meeting of this new world organization
in December 2001.
III. Observations and conclusions
A. The Standard Rules document
117. It is obvious that more progress in policy development
and legislation has taken place in the 1990s than in earlier
decades. It is also evident that the progress during the last 10
years is clearly connected with the International Year of
Disabled Persons (1981), the World Programme of Action
(1982) and the political process initiated at that time. A
considerable number of countries throughout the world have
adopted new legislation and developed national policies in
harmony with international guidelines. In this process, the
Standard Rules have played a significant role. Above all the
Standard Rules have clearly defined the role of the State in
implementing measures towards full participation and equal
opportunities, strengthened the human rights dimensions and
provided an active monitoring mechanism within the United
Nations system.
118. The Standard Rules document has many merits. It is
concise and provides a concentrated presentation of
guidelines in a number of areas. These guidelines have been
used in a great number of countries in many different ways.
The fact that the recommendations are at the international level
E/CN.5/2000/3
22
has created room for national application and adjustment to
regional and local circumstances.
119. There are, however, shortcomings in the Standard Rules
document. Some dimensions of disability policy have not been
treated sufficiently. This is true concerning children with
disabilities, in the gender dimension and for certain groups,
mainly persons with developmental and psychiatric disabilities.
It has been pointed out that the Rules do not include a strategy
for improving living conditions of disabled people in regions
with extreme poverty. Disabled persons in refugee or
emergency situations are other areas that have not been dealt
with. As I pointed out in my previous report to the Commission
for Social Development (A/52/56) the whole area of housing
has not been included. Among other things this means that
there is no guidance concerning the handling of the
institutions where a great number of persons with disabilities
still spend their whole lives under miserable circumstances.
The important events in the human rights area during the 1990s
should perhaps also be more clearly reflected. (See paras. 157-
160 below)
120. One of the most prominent features of the Standard
Rules is the monitoring mechanism. The terms of reference for
this function, presented in section IV of the document, are far
reaching and could motivate considerable resources for
implementation. In point of fact, the available resources have
been limited, although it must be emphasized that the funds
made available for this project through extrabudgetary means
have been more generous than for most other projects in the
field of social development. The way the purpose of the
monitoring is set out, emphasis should be on promotion,
assistance and assessment. Wit hin available resources, I have
tried to include activities in all these areas.
B. The role of the Special Rapporteur
121. In my role as Special Rapporteur I have performed
several different functions. I have introduced the Standard
Rules at a great number of both international and national
conferences and seminars. On such occasions I have explained
the background of the Rules and their relation to other United
Nations documents. One important task during country visits
has been to assist in interpreting the meaning of the Rules and
in finding relevant applications in given situations. In some
cases Governments have asked for advice concerning how to
proceed in certain areas. In other cases our discussions have
concerned priorities.
122. Many people I have worked with have told me that one
important function of my work has been to provide a catalytical
function. I have brought Governments and other concerned
parties together for common discussions, I have been
instrumental in getting disability onto the agenda of
Governments and I have sometimes initiated dialogues
between the organizations concerned.
123. The media coverage during my visits has been of
different character. In some cases my visit has raised a lot of
attention while on other visits very little has been said or
written.
124. It is obvious that my personal background, a dis abled
person with experience as a parliamentarian and Government
minister, has been important, especially in my contacts with
Government representatives.
125. As my visits have been short, it has always been
important to indicate clearly how agreements or new ideas
should be followed up. In most cases this has been taken care
of by the different actors in the country. In some cases I have
sent follow-up letters, summarizing what has been agreed upon
and pointing out things that should be done. There are cases
where these letters have become short-term tools for
implementation.
126. As mentioned earlier, I have assessed the level of
implementation in Member States through the distribution of
questionnaires to both Governments and national NGOs.
These monitoring surveys have concentrated on a number of
Rules. In this way, the substance of 10 of the 22 Rules have
been explored. The first survey consisted of a few general
questions about how Governments had received the Standard
Rules. Thirty-eight Governments replied. In the second and the
third surveys, the number of Governments responding has
been relatively high (83 and 104). In this way we have
assembled a fairly large volume of information, which I have
been able to use in my work and which is also available for
follow-up by United Nations agencies and others. The fact that
national NGOs have also replied to these surveys (165 in the
second and 115 in the third survey) has brought an additional
dimension. It is obvious that organizations and Governments
often do not make the same assessment of the situation. This
could form the basis for further national discussions.
C. The contribution of non-governmental
organizations
127. One of the great assets of this monitoring mechanism is
the close cooperation with the major international
organizations in the disability field. This has been important
in two different ways. The panel of experts, established by
these organizations, has played an active consultative role in
support of my work. The organizations behind the panel also
E/CN.5/2000/3
23
provide an extensive international network with more than 600
national affiliates in about 160 Member States. I have the
impression that this form of close cooperation between the
United Nations and international NGOs is unique and could
serve as a model for other areas. Above all it is important to
ensure that this form of cooperation will continue as part of a
future monitoring mechanism.
128. The panel organizations have issued information material
and user guidelines to national members to facilitate the use
of the Rules. Several workshops and training seminars have
been organized regionally, often co-funded by the United
Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability. The Standard Rules and
their implementation have continued to be an item on the
agenda of the international congresses of the panel
organizations.
129. During my visits to various countries, I have held
separate meetings with the representatives of the organizations
to find out how they view the situation. They have often also
participated in my discussions with Governments. To keep the
organizations representing the interests of persons with
disabilities involved and informed has often proved to be the
best guarantee for keeping disability on the national agenda
and for the follow-up of agreements and new ideas.
D. Response by Member States
130. How have Member States responded to the Standard
Rules and to our monitoring efforts? My general impression
is that the Rules are well known by disability experts in most
Government administrations around the world and that they
are being widely used in a large number of countries. They are
being used to create new legislation, as a basis for plans of
action and sometimes as an evaluation tool to assess the
situation. Conferences and training seminars have been
organized to introduce the contents of the Rules or to discuss
their application in certain areas.
131. In my discussions with Governments a great number of
different subjects have been raised. On occasion, Governments
may have been planning to formulate a new disability policy,
but more often they have been looking for a strategy to
implement a new policy or legislation. Often Governments have
wanted to know how other countries have used the Standard
Rules or how they have solved a certain problem. One issue,
which tends to come up frequently, concerns the distribution
of responsibility. Oftentimes, when Governments adopt the
principle of inclusion or mainstreaming, the ministries
responsible for the implementation of the policy run into
conflicts with other ministries and public institutions, that are
reluctant to accept disability concerns as their responsibility.
The notion that disability is a concern solely for disability
specialists is deeply rooted worldwide. Other important issues
that have formed the basis for dialogue are: cooperation and
coordination issues; moving from an old system into the
application of modern principles; how to change negative
attitudes towards disability among the general population; deinstitutionalization;
and issues in areas such as accessibility
and education.
132. The response of Member States to our monitoring could
also be expressed in terms of providing information to our
global surveys. More than 100 Governments have provided
information on a number of aspects of implementation. The
extensive information received can be used for various followup
actions. One such area is the serious human rights problems
revealed by the second global survey. This accumulated
information has also made it possible to describe certain global
phenomena, such as the establishment of structures for
cooperation between Governments and national NGOs,
common serious problems in lack of access to education and
the fact that disability measures are seldom included in general
programmes of development cooperation. All those
Governments that have responded to our extensive
questionnaires have made considerable efforts in providing
information on a number of areas. Naturally this also has had
an awareness-raising effect in government administrations.
Unfortunately, there are a number of countries, in most cases
small and poor countries, from which we have no information.
I have not been invited to visit them and they have not
responded to any of our surveys. Probably the main reason
for not participating in our monitoring exercise is a lack of
resources or knowledge about disability matters. The fact that
the Special Rapporteur only visits countries upon request has
naturally also been a limiting factor in this context.
E. Outcome of the third survey
133. The results presented in this survey must be viewed from
t he fact that 77 of the 104 responding Member States, b y a
classification according to socio-economic criteria, are
developing countries. From this perspective a strikingly high
proportion of Governments indicated the existence of medical
services (99 countries of 104 responding), rehabilitation (73 of
102) and the provision of devices and equipment (87 of 96) to
persons with disabilities. This is an encouraging result.
134. The fact that services exist in a country and that there
is government involvement signifies that this kind of
programme has been established, that the national competence
in the field can grow and that thereby a foundation has been
laid for further development. However, it should be emphasized
E/CN.5/2000/3
24
that, affirmative replies notwithstanding, very different
situations may exist. Countries with full coverage of existing
needs and countries where a national centre has been
established, covering perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the actual need,
may both indicate that a national programme exists.
135. The full report prepared by WHO will hopefully make a
more profound analysis possible, especially as WHO will be
in a position to take replies from both governments and
national NGOs into account.
136. A follow-up study on the availability of services in a
selected number of countries could increase our understanding
of the situation.
137. It is interesting to observe that community-based
rehabilitation and other forms of decentralized services exist
in so many countries.
138. Concerning the provision of devices and equipment for
disabled people, it is encouraging to note that a majority of
countries supply services to a large number of defined groups.
139. Persons with disabilities, their families and their
organizations are obviously involved in various aspects of
providing services in a number of countries, even if the
indicated frequencies are considerably lower than for the
existence of services.
140. Finally, since the right to influence and involvement by
persons with disabilities and their organizations is a matter of
priority in the Standard Rules, measures to strengthen and
ensure this influence should be taken by more Governments.
F. Legislation
141. Both the adoption of the Standard Rules and
developments in the human rights area has increased the
pressure for modernized legislation. A considerable number
of countries have developed their legislation concerning
persons with disabilities. Some have included disability in an
anti-discrimination clause in their constitutions. This has, in
most cases, been done in connection with a major revision of
the constitution. In the vast majority of cases, countries have
chosen to establish special laws on disability and not to
integrate disability concerns into general legislation. There are
great variations both in form and subjects covered under these
new laws. There are also great variations in the area of
enforcement mechanisms. One common challenge is to define
the group or groups of people entitled to enjoy the various
provisions of the law. As far as I know, the first initiative to
analyse the legal developments that have taken place during
the 1990s on a global basis was the United Nations
Consultative Expert Group Meeting on International Norms and
Standards Relating to Disability held at Berkeley from
December 8 to 12 1998. The report of the meeting included a
number of valuable recommendations and suggestions both
in relation to the development of national legislation and
concerning international cooperation. The initiative to compile
national legislation to create a library on international norms
and standards taken by the Disability Programme within the
Secretariat is highly commendable.
G. Human rights development
142. As discussed in paragraphs 63 to 70 above, significant
progress has recently taken place in the area of human rights
and disability. The essence of this development is the
recognition that disability and disability-related problems is
a concern for the United Nations human rights monitoring
system. This is probably the most important progress for the
cause of disabled persons in recent years. To use this
opportunity maximally, the challenge now is to develop
awareness and competence for this new task within the United
Nations monitoring system, in Government administration and
among NGOs. As far as I know, little has happened in this area
since the adoption of resolution 1998/31 by the Commission
on Human Rights. Therefore, urgent need for follow-up action
in this field still exists.
H. Children with disabilities
143. Some positive developments have taken place during
this second monitoring period. The discussion day held in
October 1997, organized by the Committee on the Rights of the
Child, resulted in increased awareness of the many dimensions
of this issue and stimulated the Committee to adopt a number
of recommendations for further action. The working group
established by NGOs in the fields of disability and children’s
rights in 1999 to follow up on some of these recommendations
has the potential to provide valuable information and
knowledge in this field.
144. Many United Nations agencies, in particular UNICEF,
UNESCO, WHO and ILO, have programmes concerning
children with disabilities. It is important that these efforts are
well coordinated and that the acting agencies make sure that
a holistic approach can be maintained and that no important
aspect is left out.
145. I notice that there is a growing involvement in the
situation of disabled children on the part of the NGOs working
in the disability field. It is necessary, however, that this
E/CN.5/2000/3
25
involvement continue to expand. The newly created working
group may contribute to such growth.
I. Gender aspects
146. It is important that the disability-related gender issues,
as far as possible, are dealt with as a natural part of gender
analysis in different areas. It is encouraging that, since 1997,
the Commission on the Status of Women has included
disability aspects in its work in different areas.
147. However, more needs to be done to improve the living
conditions of girls and women with disabilities. To a large
extent, the task is now to increase awareness and knowledge
about the specific problems and discrimination faced by girls
and women with disabilities. Information about these problems
and the ability to handle them must be built in both in gender
and disability programmes.
148. Some United Nations agencies have started work in this
field and have the potential to play an important role in the
promotion of these issues globally. International disability
organizations and their national affiliates have a crucial role to
play both in awareness-raising among their own members and
in building up int ernational support for the struggle for
improved conditions for women and girls with disabilities.
More needs to be done in these areas.
J. Persons with developmental and psychiatric
disabilities
149. Both these groups are among the most marginalized in
our societies. In most communities they and their families meet
negative attitudes and prejudice. Their existence must be
recognized in all countries and their needs made known and
visible. Inclusion International is making an important
contribution to mobilize parents and professionals of people
with developmental disabilities in the struggle for better
conditions. These efforts must be supported so that they can
be continued and strengthened.
150. In the case of persons with psychiatric disabilities, there
is no worldwide organization which represents their interests
alone. One of the most urgent needs is to support the attempts
made by small groups of psychiatric users to organize and
create a voice of their own in more countries. The plan to
develop the World Federation of Psychiatric Survivors and
Users into a strong and representative world organization must
get support and recognition.
151. For both groups the issue of how to handle the large
institutions in many countries is crucial. It involves both the
issue of how to improve the living conditions for those who
already live in institutions and what measures should be taken
to avoid institutionalization of individuals in the future. It is
therefore equally necessary to develop support services and
programmes for both groups to make it possible to live in
society with a developmental or a psychiatric disability. As far
as I have been able to find out, the United Nations and its
agencies have not adopted policy in this important area.
152. The United Nations document entitled “Principles for the
Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement
of Mental Health Care” provides clear and progressive
guidelines for the treatment and care for persons with mental
illness. It would be interesting to study how far Member States
have come in their implementation of these guidelines. To my
knowledge, no such follow-up study has been made since the
adoption of the resolution.
K. Future involvement by the United Nations
153. My mandate as Special Rapporteur ends in August 2000.
Consequently, the Commission for Social Development has to
consider at its thirty-eighth session if and how this monitoring
exercise should continue. Important progress has been made
since the adoption of the Standard Rules. Many more
Governments have engaged themselves in policy development
and created national structures for planning and coordination
in the disability field. Disability will be a much more prominent
issue in the area of human rights. A structure for cooperation
between the United Nations system and international NGOs
in the disability field has developed. The Standard Rules have
proved to be a useful tool in the development of government
policies and legislation.
154. This new development has also led to increased
awareness and new challenges. How can we make use of the
new situation in the field of human rights? What should be
done about the shortcomings of the Standard Rules document?
What action should be taken to improve the situation of
persons with developmental and psychiatric disabilities? How
could the present cooperation between the United Nations
system and international NGOs be preserved and developed
in the future?
155. When discussing the future monitoring of the Standard
Rules it is necessary to take new developments into account.
I have discussed these issues with the Panel of Experts and I
have received a number of valuable responses to a letter
concerning future options that I circulated in the beginning of
1999.
E/CN.5/2000/3
26
1. Strengthening the United Nations documents
on disability
156. The Standard Rules are being used in a large number of
countries. We also know that there are shortcomings and gaps
in the document, which should be corrected. I have specified
a number of such areas in paragraphs 157 to 160 of the present
report. The Commission for Social Development should
consider forms for complementing and developing the Rules
to cover new or unaddressed areas in the disability field.
157. Ten years ago the United Nations General Assembly
rejected proposals for a convention on the rights of persons
with disabilities. The international movement of disabled
people never fully accepted the reasons for that decision.
Many find it difficult to see the difference in principle between
a special convention in this area as compared to other areas
where conventions already exist. Since there have been
significant developments in national policies and laws
worldwide during these 10 years, it is possible that a larger
number of governments would now accept the elaboration of
a convention. The question is, however, if the number of
supportive governments would be large enough to make the
development of a convention really meaningful.
158. One crucial issue in this context is what level of
s pecification would be chosen in a convention. One idea could
be to develop the Standard Rules and to build a convention
on a principal basis and link it to the Rules.
159. The development in the human rights area calls for
further initiatives. One option, which in my opinion should be
considered by the Commission on Human Rights, is to
elaborate special protocols or comments developing the
different aspects of human rights concerns for persons with
disabilities. The purpose of this should be to improve the
standards of monitoring. At least temporarily this could be an
alternative to elaborating a special convention.
2. Options for monitoring
160. The special monitoring mechanism, which was
constructed for monitoring the implementation of the Standard
Rules, includes promotion of the Rules, assistance to Member
States and assessment of the situation. My experience is that
this is a very useful combination of tasks. It would therefore
not be appropriate to reduce the monitoring to a more passive
function of observing what happens. Based on my experience,
I support a continuation of a monitoring mechanism with the
same basic functions.
161. As far as I can understand there are two main options
if monitoring is to be continued. One is to integrate the
function into the Secretariat and the other is to continue in the
same manner as before. The present structure, with a Panel of
Experts appointed by international disability organizations,
should be maintained in connection with either of these
options. A third possibility, which is interesting but probably
too demanding in terms of resources, would be to add to a
global function of regional rapporteurs who would do most of
the travelling.
162. If the monitoring is to be carried out in a meaningful and
effective manner, there has to be sufficient economic
resources. It would, of course, be an advantage, if funds could
be allocated through regular sources. If not, extrabudgetary
means must be added.
163. As I have mentioned in the section on human rights, I
have been invited to share my experience wit h the Commission
on Human Rights. In that connection it has been suggested
that a function serving both the Commission on Human Rights
and the Commission for Social Development should be
considered. I do not know if this is technically possible or if
it has occurred before. As an expression of the need to use a
holistic approach and create close cooperation between
different United Nations entities in the same field, I think it is
interesting. Most important of all in this context is, however,
that mechanisms are established so that from now on disability
can be monitored both from a human rights and a social
development perspective.
3. Improved coordination within the United Nations
system
164. It is clearly illustrated both in the report by the Secretary-
General to the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly and
in the present report that many United Nations agencies have
extensive programmes in the disability field. There is a need
for improved coordination both on the country level and
internationally between these agencies. I raised this issue in
my previous report and suggested that the formal inter-agency
mechanism, which existed during the Decade of Disabled
Persons (1983-1992), should be re-established on a regular
footing. As more actors have entered the disability field and
as more activities are being carried out, there is a strong need
for better coordination of efforts, exchange of experience and
sharing of information. In the absence of an initiative for a
permanent solution, agencies hold informal consultations on
an annual basis. At the meeting of agencies and NGOs in June
1999, it was stated that there is a need to facilitate inter-agency
collaboration at global level, through an appropriate
mechanism, without adding an additional administrative layer
and impairing the mandate of each organization concerned.
This meeting also suggested that the possibility of creating
a subcommittee on disability under the Administrative
E/CN.5/2000/3
27
Committee on Coordination, which would ensure a more
prominent and visible profile for disability, should be explored.
4. Awareness-raising and campaigns
165. In the discussion of future possibilities suggestions
have been made for both a second International Year and a
second Decade of Disabled Persons. In this context, the
possibility of using the regional commissions of the United
Nations and other regional intergovernmental bodies for such
initiatives has been suggested. One good example of what can
be achieved in this way is the Decade of Disabled Persons
(1993-2002) of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific. There are also proposals for regional decades
in Africa and Europe. In the American region, the Organization
of American States has recently adopted a Convention on the
Rights of Disabled People. It is expected that this will be
followed by regional implementation efforts.
166. Taking all these regional initiatives into account, I think
that there is no reason to initiate any global campaigns at the
present time. The role of the United Nations should rather be
to support the regional initiatives in all possible ways and to
make efforts to coordinate and create opportunities for the
exchange of information.