Back to: Third Session of the Ad Hoc Committee
NGO Comments at the third session

Comments by NGOs at the Third Session
Landmine Survivors Network

Article 4
Obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights

Intervention by Jerry White on behalf of Landmine Survivors Network
May 24, 2004

Landmine Survivors Network would like to thank the Working Group for its fine work in preparing the draft before us.

The provision on general obligations is critical to ensure that States understand broadly what their commitments are in implementing their substantive obligations, which I emphasize are and must continue to be much broader than the narrow approach of non discrimination proposed by the European Union.

To echo South Africa, Jordan, Lichtenstein, Mexico and many other delegates, as important as non discrimination is in the context of this treaty, the concept of full inclusion is about more than just the absence of non discrimination. As reflected in the draft text, we believe that the Convention must reflect the full range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, which on the basis of our work with survivors in scores of mine affected countries are necessary if our human rights are to be enjoyed.

Further, the proposal to remove States’ obligation to take measures to eliminate discrimination by “private enterprises” is of deep concern, and unnecessary. First, other conventions have extended State obligations to the private sector, and this treaty should require no less of States in the disability context. Second, discrimination against persons with disabilities happens to a large extent in the private sector, namely work and accessibility, to identify two key areas.

We would also like to affirm Thailand’s proposal on subparagraph c, now reading,
“to integrate disability issues into all economic and social development policies and programmes, including international cooperation.”

Thank you Chair.

Article 6

Intervention on Equality and Non-discrimination prepared by Landmine Survivors Network

Given the historic exclusion and marginalization of people with disabilities, Landmine Survivors Network, like many of our colleagues, welcomes the inclusion of a specific article on equality and non-discrimination, as set forth in Draft Article 7 of the Working Group Draft text.

We believe that the equality and non-discrimination framework set forth in Draft Article 7 is, on the whole, a strong one, and largely consistent with formulations found in other treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and CEDAW. However, LSN would like to highlight 2 important changes that we feel should be made to Article 7:

1) We support our colleagues in EDF in believing that the concept of indirect discrimination (raised in FN 24) should be explicitly articulated in the convention, as an aid to states seeking to fight discrimination against people with disabilities. If the Committee should choose to include a definition of “indirect discrimination” we find the language from the first part of EU New Article 3 bis, para 2(b) a helpful contribution. It reads “Indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put a person having a disability at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons.”

2) The second change we recommend regards Article 7(3), in support of the recommendations on this paragraph by Australia and Costa Rica. We believe that para 3 should be deleted. As noted in FN 26, such a standard of review has never before been included in a core international human rights convention, and to do so here would be a departure from that precedent. Consistent with prior practice, we believe that the development of standards of review in relation to non-discrimination should be left up to the relevant treaty review body. If the Committee should choose to retain this paragraph, which in our opinion is unnecessary, we would support the language amendments proposed by Japan, Canada, Yeman and EDF, which we believe better reflect existing precedent on this matter.

To conclude on a lighter note, Landmine Survivors Network would like to commend the sensitivity of the Canadian delegation regarding Article 7(2)(a), which uses the term “equal footing.” Maybe it comes from Canada’s historic leadership in the elaboration of the Landmine Ban Treaty. Landmine Survivors and amputees around the world – who don’t have “equal footing” appreciate the re-formulation of paragraph 2(a), changing the wording to “on a basis of equality with others.”

Thank you.

Draft Article 8
Right to Life

LSN Intervention

Landmine Survivors Network supports the retention of Article 8 on the right to life on the basis that the right to life is a fundamental principle of human rights law from which no derogation is permitted. While we support the formulation of the Working Group, we believe that serious consideration should be given to the proposal put forward by the delegation of India that reflects the approach taken in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

A number of delegations have put forward proposals relating to the particular situation of groups at risk. We strongly support these proposals. We recommend that proposals for language on groups at risk would be more appropriately structured in the convention if placed in a separate article. Therefore, a new article should reflect the particular situation of persons with disabilities in armed conflict and natural disaster. In addition, we support the inclusion of a separate paragraph in an article on groups at risk that references the situation of persons with disabilities in rural or remote areas or in scattered populations. Precedent for such inclusion is reflected in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Draft article 15
LIVING INDEPENDENTLY AND BEING INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY

May 28, 2004 – responding to the submission by Korea of Article 15 bis on women with disabilities

Landmine Survivors Network strongly supports the proposal put forward by Korea and the comments made by South Africa, Namibia, Kenya, Uganda and others. Liechtenstein has also raised important points for consideration.

Our work with women and girl landmine survivors in mine-affected countries around the world convinces us of the need to ensure that the specific barriers that women and girls with disabilities face must be addressed in this convention.

r experience is that women amputees have additional difficulties to male amputees, even if it is unintentional discrimination. We therefore encourage delegates to support this proposal.

Thank you.

* Disclaimer