 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to: Third Session | Draft Article 11 Comments on the draft text Download complete compilation of comments: MS Word National Human Rights Institutions Ontario Human Rights Commission The Commission is supportive of this draft Article. The Commission’s report, The Opportunity to Succeed: Achieving Barrier-free Education for Students with Disabilities, addresses the possible discriminatory impact of the discipline provisions of Ontario’s Safe Schools Act on students with disabilities and students from racial minority groups. The report recommended that educators be required to use discretion in their application of the Safe Schools Act and assess whether a student with a disability has been accommodated appropriately before that student can either be suspended or expelled. The report also recommended that school boards collect and analyze data on which students are being disciplined under the Act to ensure that the legislation is not having an adverse impact on individuals protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code. EDF strongly supports the prohibition of forced interventions and forced institutionalisation in this article as well as in draft article 12. Indian NGO Consultative Meeting Additional text is suggested to article 11 therefore the new subpara 3 of article 11 should read as “To ensure that the best interest of the person is protected in the event the person is passing through a phase in which he or she is unable to communicate free consent, no intervention shall occur unless a form of consent is given on their behalf by a duly appointed nominee by the person concern or by an impartial authority established under the law.” With regard to para 1 of article 12, the participants suggested enlargement of the heads of prevented actions and suggested inclusion of word “abduction”. The modified text of 12-1) should therefore be read as “States Parties recognise that persons with disabilities are at greater risk, both within and outside the home, of violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual exploitation and abuse. States Parties shall, therefore, take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational and other measures to protect persons with disabilities, both within and outside the home, from all forms of violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual exploitation, abuse and abduction.” Similar addition of the word “abduction” is suggested for article 12-3. Therefore the article 12-3 should read as “States Parties shall also take all appropriate measures to prevent violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual exploitation, abuse and abduction, by ensuring, inter alia, support for persons with disabilities and their families, including the provision of information.” Under 12-5 similar addition of the word “abduction” is suggested. Therefore the article 12-5 should be read as “Where persons with disabilities are the victim of any form of violence, injury or abuse and abduction, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual exploitation and abuse, States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote their physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration. With regard to article 12-6, addition of text was suggested. The 12-6 should be read as “States Parties shall ensure the identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of violence and abuse, and the provision of protection services and, as appropriate, legal remedies, judicial intervention and judicial involvement. Although medical experimentation has previously been addressed in the context of prohibitions against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Cf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7), it is unusual for forced medical treatment and institutionalization to be addressed in the same context, as is done in Draft Article 11(2). In order to better elaborate protections and legal safeguards against forced treatment and institutionalization, it may be better to address these issues in a separate article, as well as to ensure that legal safeguards in related articles (such as Draft Article 10) are comprehensively addressed. Footnote 38 indicates the desire by some members of the Working Group to permit forced treatment and forced institutionalization – a position not favored by most disability advocates. If this approach is considered by the Ad Hoc Committee it will be particularly important to address what legal safeguards to employ in such situations. This Article must focus on the actions undertaken by states. |