HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS AFFECTED BY LEPROSY
The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this afternoon discussed requests from the Human Rights Council to the Committee concerning the human rights of persons with disabilities and the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and members of their family.
Maarit Kohonen of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Unit, Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), introducing the issue of persons with disabilities, said that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had entered into force in May 2008. This convention represented a paradigm shift in attitudes and approaches towards persons with disabilities. The convention was a further step in a process that was moving away from the treatment of persons with disabilities as “objects” of charity, medical treatment and social protection towards viewing them as “subjects” with rights, who were capable of claiming those rights and making decisions for their lives based on their free and informed consent.
In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts wondered what exactly the Council was requesting the Advisory Committee to do concerning persons with disabilities. For them, the text of the resolution was in the same line as the women issue. In other words, whenever the Advisory Committee dealt with a subject, they should not forget to include persons with disabilities. Experts also wondered why only 32 countries had ratified the Convention. For some Experts the reason was because, unlike other conventions that essentially placed obligations on States to adopt legislative measures, this Convention placed economic and financial obligations upon States.
Speaking on the issue of persons with disabilities were Committee Experts Chung Chinsung, Baba Kura Kaigama, Halima Embarek Warzazi, Emmanuel Decaux, Vladimir Kartashkin and Latif Hüseynov. The delegation of Mexico also took the floor.
Ms. Kohonen of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Unit, Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), introducing the issue of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members, said that Human Rights Council resolution 8/30 included concrete action points for the Advisory Committee to be undertaken on this topic. In paragraph 4, OHCHR was requested to collect information from Governments and to convene a public meeting on the subject. This public meeting would take place in November of this year in Geneva. Paragraph 5 requested the Advisory Committee to examine the report by OHCHR and to formulate a draft set of principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members and to submit it to the Council for its consideration by September 2009.
In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts said that with the development of drugs, leprosy had become a curable disease. Nevertheless people affected with leprosy were still discriminated against. There was a deep-rooted discrimination affecting them and their families, especially women, children and elderly persons affected with leprosy. It was probably the disease with the longest history in mankind and people were expelled from society if they were affected by it. In some countries, vaccinations did not reach the people because of corruption.
Speaking on the subject of leprosy were Committee Experts Ansar Ahmed Burney, Shigeki Sakamoto and Emmanuel Decaux. The delegation of Japan also took the floor.
Mr. Sakamoto offered to work on formulating the draft set of principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members after the Advisory Committee received the report by the High Commissioner and his offer was accepted.
The Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 8 August to discuss the outcome of its drafting groups established to respond to requests from the Human Rights Council to the Committee on issues concerning the right to food and human rights education and training.
Discussion on Requests to the Advisory Committee from the Human Rights Council Concerning the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities
MAARIT KOHONEN, of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Unit, Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), introducing the issue of persons with disabilities, said that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities had entered into force in May 2008. This Convention represented a paradigm shift in attitudes and approaches towards persons with disabilities. This shift could be characterized in two ways. First, the Convention was a further step in a process that was moving away from the treatment of persons with disabilities as “objects” of charity, medical treatment and social protection towards viewing them as “subjects” with rights, who were capable of claiming those rights and making decisions for their lives based on their free and informed consent. Second, the Convention also viewed persons with disabilities as active members of society from whom persons without disabilities could learn from. As of today, 32 States had ratified the Convention and 17 the Optional Protocol while 130 had signed the Convention and 71 the Optional Protocol. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would be soon established and be served by OHCHR. Experts would be elected in November 2008.
The call for integrating the perspectives and rights of persons with disabilities throughout the work of the Advisory Committee was an important one, said Ms. Kohonen. The Committee could build upon the substantive work that had been carried out by the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which had been actively engaged in promoting the rights of persons with disabilities.
Turning to the activities of OHCHR, Ms. Kohonen said that they had been very active in the elaboration and negotiation of the Convention and its Optional Protocol. The overall objectives of the Office were to raise awareness of the Convention and to encourage States to ratify it. At the country level, activities had ranged from raising awareness about the Convention, reviewing legislation, undertaking country research as well as providing training for government officials. The Office had also made available copies of the Convention in Braille.
In 2007, OHCHR and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) had agreed on a joint work programme in the context of the shared role as joint secretariat to the Convention. The Office had also conducted consultations with persons with disabilities. In October 2007, OHCHR, together with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and DESA had published a handbook for Parliamentarians on the Convention, noted Ms. Kohonen.
This year, OHCHR had also been requested by the Human Rights Council to prepare a report on legal measures for ratification and implementation of the Convention, in preparation for a panel discussion to take place during the tenth regular session of the Council in March 2009. The Office had also assisted the Special Rapporteurs on the right to education and on torture to integrate the rights of persons with disabilities in their mandates.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said that she could not see what the clear request of the Council to the Advisory Committee was concerning persons with disabilities and wanted to know the opinion of other Committee Members.
BABA KAIGAMA, Advisory Committee Expert, said that awareness for the needs of persons with disabilities was very low. He thought that public buildings were not fully accessible to persons with disabilities only in developing countries, but he noted that the situation in Geneva proved that it was not.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the text of the resolution was in the same line as the women issue. In other words, whenever the Advisory Committee dealt with a subject, they should not forget persons with disabilities. It did not mean that they had to take them into account for each and every topic, but in those that were relevant. They were not requested to study this topic in-depth. For women it should be done automatically, but for persons with disabilities, the Committee rather had to make sure that Governments took into account this problem.
Further, she wondered why there had been only 32 countries that had ratified the Convention, why had others not ratified it yet. Was it for economic reasons? It had been almost a year now since the entry into force of the Convention. Other Conventions had been received with far more enthusiasm by countries.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the fact that States were taking time to go from signing to ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities meant that States were taking their work seriously. Since there were many different kinds of physical and mental disabilities, it took time for States to implement the changes. Mr. Decaux said that States undertook many obligations when they ratified a convention; in the short run the Committee Experts should not be too pessimistic.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that when he had read the Convention shortly after its adoption he had had the firm conviction that the ratification process would be very slow. Why? This was because, unlike other conventions which essentially placed obligations on States to adopt legislative measures, this Convention was placing economic and financial obligations upon States. The Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had given States the ability to implement the provisions contained therein in a progressive manner to help developing countries. But the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities placed on all States the same obligations. And these were very hard to implement, even in developed countries. Further, in his view, special international assistance was needed. Developing countries should be helped to implement the provisions of the Convention.
LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, commented that he had another theoretical interpretation on the obligations stemming from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Concerning economic, social and cultural rights, the convention used the same expression as was used in Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the ‘progressive realisation’ of the rights of people with disabilities. Certain States which had not yet ratified the convention faced difficulties complying with the obligations of the convention.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that it was true that for some of the covenants and conventions, there had been tremendous difficulties to get them adopted. Developing countries had felt that economic and social problems could not be solved overnight, whereas in the case of political rights it was much simpler. Giving access to the right to vote and to equality of justice was far easier. But when it came to persons with disabilities, she found that they had the same rights as others and they had to be given access in order to fully enjoy civil and political rights. A person with disabilities should have the right to vote and have access to justice, just as a person without disabilities.
Further, it was quite clear than even in developing countries, like hers, construction was going on every day in every place. Thus, Governments should think about, when they were building new buildings, that they had to ensure that persons with disabilities would have access to these buildings. She also wondered if there had been any reservations by the Governments that had already ratified the convention.
JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) said Mexico and New Zealand had presented the Human Rights Council resolution. The aim of the resolution was for the Advisory Committee, in its work and methodology, to participate in the transformation of the culture of human rights into one that integrated fully the rights of persons with disabilities. Mexico was convinced that the convention, which did not create new rights but which included already existing rights, would be universally ratified.
MAARIT KOHONEN, of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Unit, Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said that she fully agreed that the Advisory Committee had not been given any specific task, but that whenever it considered it appropriate, the Advisory Committee should include the perspective of persons with disabilities in its work, such as for example the access to food for persons with disabilities, when dealing with the right to food. Further, in her view, the fact that so many countries had already signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was already a good sign and she hoped that more would soon ratify it. The Convention allowed for reservations but there were none currently.
Answering to Mr. Kartashkin’s question, Ms. Kohonen noted that Article 32 of the convention in fact enshrined international cooperation. The argument about the cost of implementation existed, but the convention only clarified already existing provisions and did not create any new rights. The exclusion of 10 percent of a country’s population could be, in the longer term, much more costly. This convention was in the first instance about non discrimination, this did not cost money.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, wondered why there were neither non governmental organizations nor specialized agencies speaking on this topic and other topics before the Advisory Committee. This was very worrying. There had to be a participation of all stakeholders: Committee Experts, non-governmental organizations, specialized agencies and country delegations.
Discussion on Requests to the Advisory Committee from the Human Rights Council Concerning Discrimination against Persons Affected by Leprosy and Their Families
MAARIT KOHONEN, of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Unit, Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), introducing the issue of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members, said that this topic was not a new one in the consideration of the United Nations human rights mechanisms. The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had appointed a Special Rapporteur to make a report on this subject and he had presented a report in 2006 on the formal visits he had undertaken in several countries. The Sub-Commission had further recommended that the Commission request the Sub-Commission to conduct a study on the matter.
Turning to Human Rights Council resolution 8/30, Ms. Kohnen said that it included concrete action points for the Advisory Committee to be undertaken on this topic. These actions points had to be undertaken by September 2009. The two most important ones were included in operative paragraphs 4 and 5 of the resolution. In paragraph 4, OHCHR was requested to collect information from Governments and to convene a public meeting on the subject. This public meeting would take place in November of this year in Geneva.
The Office was also requested to submit a report on this subject to the Advisory Committee and the Human Rights Council, based on information compiled from information they had received from Governments. Paragraph 5 requested the Advisory Committee to examine this report and to formulate a draft set of principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members and to submit it to the Council for its consideration by September 2009. There was thus a very specific request for the Advisory Committee.
In view of the short time available for this request and the fact that the Office had no expertise in this area, if budget allowed them, they would hire a consultant specialist on this subject to provide draft elements. This information could be made available by January 2009 to the Advisory Committee. Further, the Advisory Committee should address this issue in the context of a neglected disease and in the context of non-discrimination. The former Special Rapporteur on the highest attainable physical health, Paul Hunt, had also included the issue of leprosy in some of his reports.
ANSAR AHMED BURNEY, Advisory Committee Expert, asked if there was a difference between persons with disabilities and persons affected by leprosy for the discussions of the Committee.
SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Advisory Committee Expert, said that with the development of drugs, leprosy had become a curable disease. Nevertheless people affected with leprosy where still discriminated against. There was a deep rooted discrimination affecting them and their families, especially women, children and elderly persons affected by leprosy. He volunteered to draft guidelines on this subject, if his colleagues agreed.
JOSE BENGOA, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he had attended a number of meetings concerning leprosy. He said it was one of the most striking experiences he had ever had. Leprosy had been curable for some time now, but most people did not know this and discrimination was really brutal against infected people. It was probably the disease with the longest history in mankind and people were expelled from society if they were affected by it.
Mr. Bengoa said that Brazil and India had a huge number of leprosy infections, those infections were linked to ignorance, discrimination, hunger and corruption. Vaccinations did not reach the people because of corruption.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he supported what previous speakers had said and in his view Mr. Sakamoto would surely do an excellent job on this subject. This issue was very important and the Advisory Committee had to tackle it in depth. They should also take into account what had been done by the World Health Organisation and they could maybe also look into other diseases that had led to stigmatisation.
AKIO ISOMATA (Japan) said Japan was one of the co-sponsors of the Human Rights Council resolution. This resolution was action-oriented and consisted of several pillars. Japan thanked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for already having taken first steps. Japan was pleased to note that the meeting mentioned in the resolution would be organized. Furthermore, Japan would like to support the Committee in their task.
MAARIT KOHONEN, of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Unit, Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), answering Mr. Burney, said that the difference between a disability and an illness such as leprosy was that an illness was not regarded as a disability. Disability was a condition. Persons affected by leprosy might be affected by disabilities but not necessarily. Further, disability should not be seen as an illness to be cured but rather as a human disparity. Also, the stigmatisation attached to both was of a different nature.
For use of the information media; not an official record
AC08009E