 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to:Modifications by Governments Proposals to the draft text - IndiaDelegation of India – Proposed additions to Articles 4 and 5 1. In order to introduce the concept of consultation with families, three alternatives of Article 5(d) are proposed. Alternative 1: After the words “working in partnership with persons with disabilities” add the words “their families” and continue with “and their representative organisations in all measures taken to give effect to the obligations contained in this article.” OR Alternative 2: At the end of sub-para (d) add the words “in circumstances where persons with disabilities themselves are unable to express their concerns or their views, or express them through representative organisations due to the lack of such organisations, the family members may be consulted.” OR Alternative 3: After the words “and their representative organisations” add the words “and their families where appropriate” and continue with “in all measures……….” 2. It will also be necessary to introduce the concept of families in Article 4(2). Here we would support the EU formulation with the addition of the words “and their families where appropriate”, at the end. Interventions made in the 4th session of Ad Hoc Committee on International Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No.4
No.5
No.6
No.7
No. 8
No.9 India supports this article. In the shapean of article 1, we support Australia with the word “appropriate”. In 1(a), we propose the word “Create” in place of “Raise”. We further suggest inclusion of the word “abilities” in place of “potential” as suggested by Uganda. We suggest replacement of the word “foster” by “promote” as suggested by Mexico. We support the suggestion of Trinidad, Tobago and Japan in (b) “negative”. In para 2(a), we suggest the word “effective” to be replaced by “Comprehensive”. We suggest the word “nurture” to be replaced by “foster”. We suggest dropping of the article 2(b) since this is repetitive. In para 2(d), we support Uganda “and families” has been added.
No.10
In para1, we align with those delegations that have proposed deletion of the list.
No.11 We would prefer to retain the language of Article 8 as reflected in the original text. In the first part of the original text, we suggest addition of the phase “on an equal basis with others” as proposed by N.Z. We also share the view that a debate on any other issue like the status of the unborn child would lead us in a direction not relevant in the present context.
No.12 Mr Chairman, in this article we are faced with a situation of competing claims where on the one hand persons with disabilities are asserting their full capacity and requiring its recognition by the law, on the other hand caregivers and families of certain subgroups prompted by considerations of care and protection are advocating for substituted decision-making. We would need to examine whether these competing claims can be inducted with in a model of assisted decision-making. The model proposed by Canada amongst others would need to be examined more closely. Mr Chairman, in our national laws, we are also faced with a situation where our general laws allow for disqualifying persons with psycho-social disabilities in exercising some of the civil rights, whilst our disability laws make provision for equal opportunity and full participation of persons with disabilities. Perhaps this dichotomy exists because the disqualifying regime preceded the disability rights movement. Mr Chairman while we are empathetic to the principle of full legal capacity, we are afraid that circumstances allowing for such exercise do not exist on the ground. We are not averse to relying on law as an instrument of social change, for us to do that, it becomes essential that this section may be cast in a more aspirational mode so that while current constraints are acknowledged future development is not curbed. We will be willing to cooperate with interested delegations in devising such a balance. We all also think the following article 10 and 11 are also to be reexamined from this perspective.
No.13 We reiterate our position on para 2 and thank South Africa for its support. We lend our support to China on their view to delete para 3 from this article.
No. 14 My delegation feels that this is certainly very important article in this draft. However, Chairman, we feel that para 1(d) on research, development and new assistive devices for persons with disabilities, may be moved to 21(bis), a new article suggested on rehabilitation. As suggested by my delegation in the 3rd AHC and also suggested by Namibia, Israel and Yemen, para 2 is repetitive of article1 (d). This may have one modification, “…designed, developed, produced and distributed at a cost affordable by the persons with disabilities”. But for the points made above, our delegation is happy to support the draft of the Working Group.
No. 15 Mr Chairman my delegation feels that article 2(1) of ICESCR should be added as para3 of General Obligations. It reads “Each state Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.” We would like to retain our earlier formulation of (e) on discrimination which stated “Discrimination does not include provisions, criteria or practices that are objectively and demonstratively justified by the State Parties by a legitimate aim and where the means of achieving that aim are reasonable and justified. Mr Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion and debate around the inclusion of the concept of families, caregivers and other representatives. My delegation and that of many others from developing countries feel strongly about this concept. There are millions of persons with intellectual, severe and multiple disabilities who are as yet, unable to exercise their autonomy and choice. In the cultural context of many countries, coupled with the severity of these conditions, family members are a natural first choice rather than organizations of disabled persons especially where the latter has not become an accepted norm and if the nurturing role of the family is not recognized, the persons with disabilities themselves would view it as abandonment of a kind, in our context. Naturally, there will be a progression towards formation of self-advocacy groups, but there are likely to be interstate and intrastate variations of the developments of the disabled rights movement towards full autonomy. It is unlikely to become uniform overnight with developed countries. We submit therefore, the inclusion of the phrase “inclusion of family members, where appropriate” be given due weight. My delegation would like to support the EU in its alternative formulation to para 2, with the addition of “their families” after the word disabilities and the words “where appropriate” at the end.
No. 16 Mr Chairman, I apologize for taking the floor for second time as there are differences in support for article 4 of CRC and article 2 of ICESCR, a number of delegates has suggested the need for introducing the concept of progressive realization of rights. My delegation suggests that we adopt an amalgam of the two, which would cater to the legitimate concerns of developing countries. Mr Chairman, our population is 1 billion and 2% of the population is disabled- a very large number of 20 million. Our resources do not permit anything but progressive realization of the economic, social and cultural rights. Many other developing countries would also find themselves in the same position. We would, therefore, add a reference to progressive realization in article 4. After the words “State Parties shall undertake such measures” we could add “ with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights.” We are not speaking out of conceptual preferences or language preferences but from the hard reality of economic facts. We would also support inclusion of the wording “adequate planning and resource allocation” as in ILO formulation.
No.17 We are in agreement with the Chair to club articles 5(d), 6(c), 18(c), 19.2(g) and 21(m) and place them under General Obligations. We would also like that the words “and their families, when appropriate” be incorporated in the reworded clause.
No.18 Mr Chairman, I am sorry for taking the floor for the second time but I would like to amplify our stand. We agree that the focus of the Convention is on the persons with disability. We are in full agreement that disabled persons should also be consulted; organizations for the disabled should be consulted. In fact before we came to this meeting, we ourselves had a number of consultations with the representatives of disabled groups and NGOs on the articles of Convention. And when we speak of families, we do not speak of concerns which families have for themselves. We are not shifting the focus. A number of delegations have mentioned that families are not to be excluded. Then, why should we fight shy of mentioning them.
No.19
No. 20 We support the amendment proposed by N.Z. to delete the words “within their jurisdiction.” This is because some countries may face problems of illegal immigrants and there can not be any obligations under the convention for illegal immigrants.
No. 21
Mr Chairman, my delegation supports your formulation of para 1 of article 5. Mr Chairman, my delegation supports the E.U. in the selection of the title “Promotion of positive attitudes to persons with disabilities” with slight change suggested by Canada to use the words “towards” instead of the word “to”.
No. 22 Mr Chairman my delegation supports paras a, c and d of the text referred by you. However, we find that para b is too detailed and prescriptive to find place in an international convention, as the specific items are best left to the State Parties. We further support the placing of article 6 further down in the structure and would strongly support the delegations, which hold that the article should stand on its own and thank you for your view in the matter. These are not only two distinct activities but statistics have applications broader than just monitoring. They are to be used for formulation of programmes, resource allocation and developmental planning. We, therefore, feel that it would be appropriate to have two separate articles on Statistics and Monitoring.
No.23 We are also of the same view as Israel that the sentence is not really relevant here, but if at all it is to be included it should be in the preamble.
No.23 As regards para 2(a) of the Working Draft, we would support the chapeau of para 2 of the E.U. proposal. Our delegation is not very comfortable with the terms systemic and “perceived” disability as it is very difficult to define them or identify them. We would agree with New Zealand that para 2(b) of the Working Draft stops at “all forms of discrimination”. I am afraid we are not comfortable with the definition read out by the Mexican delegation as it is too elaborate and not specific.
No.24
I would like to begin by saying that my delegation is committed to this convention and the speeding up of the negotiating of this convention. Para 3 had been proposed in view of certain constraints being faced by a large number of developing countries.
No.25 Mr Chairman, with reference to the proposal you just made regarding introducing the concept of indirect discrimination and including the language of para 3 in that- in the interest of flexibility and moving forward, we would be willing to go along with it.
No.26 Mr Chairman my delegation feels that the word “take” in the second sentence could be replaced by “endeavour to ensure.” The sentence would then read “In order to secure the right to persons with disabilities state parties undertake to endeavour to ensure all appropriate steps etc. We would also support in the interest of improved drafting, your proposal to delete the words “including by legislation” as legislation already finds place in Article 4.We also accept Costa Rica’s suggestion of using the words “adequate accommodation” as they satisfy the criterion of reasonability. On the same criterion we support retaining the words “disproportionate burden “ or Australia’s suggestion of the word “an unjustifiable hardship” as supported by the delegation of Canada. It would also be appropriate to use the word “ensure” rather than “guarantee”, where it says “appropriate modifications and adjustments to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment…..etc. |