 |
Expert Group Meeting and Seminar on
an International Convention to Protect and Promote the Rights and Dignity of Persons with
Disabilities |
 |
|
Expert Group Meeting and Seminar on
an International Convention to Protect and Promote the Rights and Dignity of Persons with
Disabilities |
|
|
|
Materials : Basic DocumentsNote: select review of background and issues associated with elaboration of an international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities* by Clinton RapleyIntroductionThis note provides a select review of the background to the decision of the United Nations General Assembly, at its fifty-sixth session (2001), to establish an Ad Hoc Committee “to consider proposals for a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities”.[1] It also introduces certain policy considerations in the way ahead. I. Proposals to elaborate a convention on the rights of persons with disabilitiesWhen the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted in 1982[2] the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons[3] with the goals of “full participation” of disabled persons in social life and development and “equality” it provided the international community with a comprehensive framework for advancement of persons with disabilities in the context of development. Equality is a fundamental concern of the World Programme and is reflected in its “equalization of opportunities” objective. Equality is defined in the World Programme with reference to parity with opportunities available to the entire population. The World Programme does not consider persons with disabilities as vulnerable but as development agents and beneficiaries; it directs special attention to environmental factors that influence progress in equalization of opportunities. At the time of the formulation of the World Programme the relevant international policy framework concerning the promotion and protection of the rights of persons included the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[4] and the International Covenants on Human Rights, namely the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[5] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[6] A recommendation on the need to elaborate - and for the United Nations General Assembly to adopt - a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities was submitted by an international meeting of experts, held at Stockholm from 17 to 22 August 1987, which reviewed and evaluated progress and achievements in implementing the World Programme of Action at the mid-point of the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-1992).[7] The report of the expert meeting recommended that the “General Assembly … convene a special conference on the rights of persons with disabilities, with the mandate to elucidate such rights and to draft an international convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against disabled persons, to be ratified by States by the end of the Decade [in 1992].”[8] At its forty-second (1987) and forty-fourth (1989) sessions the General Assembly had draft texts of conventions on the rights of persons with disabilities submitted for consideration. However, the summary records of the time indicate that member States generally were of the view that more studies and information were required on the question.[9] In the light of the findings and recommendations of the experts at the Stockholm mid-Decade review meeting, views expressed by Governments as well as comments of the non-governmental community, the General Assembly decided that the second-half of the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons should direct “special emphasis” on equalization of opportunities.[10] The General Assembly did not reject proposals presented at its forty-second and forty-fourth sessions related to elaboration of a convention on rights of persons with disabilities. It did recommend that high priority be accorded to action to further equalization of opportunities of persons with disabilities in social life and development and invited the Secretary-General and the Member States to involve persons with disabilities in United Nations programmes and activities. Intergovernmental action on measures to further equalization of opportunities was presented for the consideration of the first Regular Session of 1990 of the Economic and Social Council, on the recommendation of the Commission for Social Development. The Council authorized the Commission, in Council resolution 1990/26 of 24 May 1990, to initiate work related to elaboration of non-binding standard Rules on equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Council resolution 1991/9 of 30 May 1991 welcomed the initiative of the Commission for Social Development to elaborate “standard technical Rules on the equalization of opportunities for disabled persons.” Action to elaborate the “Rules” was funded in part by voluntary contributions and included technical exchanges with the participation of experts from all regions. The work drew upon the experiences of countries during the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-1992) and used as a frame of reference both general international human rights instruments[11] and specific instruments related to the rights of persons with disabilities. These efforts resulted in the decision of the General Assembly to adopt by resolution 48/96 of 20 December 1993 the “Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities”.[12] As stated in Assembly resolution 48/96, annex, the value proposition 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.” While not legally binding, the Rules incorporate the human rights perspective developed during the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-1992) and thus reflect a strong moral and political commitment of Governments to take action to attain equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. The 22 Rules provide normative guidance in policy-making and for technical and economic cooperation; the Rules are in four chapters: (a) preconditions for equal participation, (b) target areas for equal participation, (c) implementation measures, and (d) monitoring mechanism. The “monitoring mechanism” is one of the most innovative aspects of the non-binding Standard Rules. The aim of monitoring was to further effective implementation of the Rules, to assist States to assess their respective level of implementation of the Rules, and to measure progress. The purpose of monitoring is to identify obstacles and suggest measures to contribute to successful implementation of the Rules. Monitoring would recognize the economic, social and cultural features in individual States. The Rules further provide that a “Special Rapporteur with relevant and extensive experience in disability issues and international organizations shall be appointed [by the Secretary-General] to monitor the implementation of the Rules.” The first Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission for Social Development, Mr. Bengt Lindqvist (Sweden), was appointed in March 1994 by the Secretary-General and served with distinction through December 2002. II. Lessons of monitoring implementation of the Standard Rules: 1994 to 2002Mr. Lindqvist submitted three monitoring reports during his service as Special Rapporteur for the period 1994-2002, whose findings and recommendations have implications for the elaboration of a convention. The report on the first mandate of the Special Rapporteur[13] covered the period 1994-1997 and reviewed activities of Governments and of the United Nations system. Special attention was directed to selected Rules: Accessibility (5), Education (6), Employment (7), Legislation (15) and Organizations of persons with disabilities (18). The report noted that 85 percent of reporting Governments had indicated existence of a national disability policy or similar instrument and that 74 percent had established national committees or similar bodies to coordinate with organizations of persons with disabilities. The Special Rapporteur remarked on the need for the human rights perspective to be more developed in the context of the Rules and for greater attention to be directed to issues related to children with disabilities, gender, shelter and housing. In the light of the findings and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, Economic and Social Council resolution 1997/19, “Equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities,” of 21 July 1997:[14]
The report on the second mandate[15] covered the period 1997-2000 and described consultations of the Special Rapporteur with Governments and his cooperation with the United Nations system as well as the non-governmental community. The Special Rapporteur discussed the results of his participation in discussions on human rights of persons with disabilities at the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights (Geneva, 16 March – 24 April 1998). The Special Rapporteur presented his views on options to complement and develop further the Standard Rules with special attention directed to human rights of persons with disabilities. Economic and Social Council resolution 2000/10, “Further promotion of equalization of opportunities by, for and with persons with disabilities,” of 27 July 2000:[16]
In addition, Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/31, “Human rights of persons with disabilities,” of 17 April 1998:
During his third mandate – 2000-2002 - the Special Rapporteur focused in particular on the further development of the Standard Rules and the issue of the human rights of persons with disabilities. He also participated in the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights (Geneva, 20 March – 28 April 2000) in connection with its consideration of the human rights of persons with disabilities. A major development during his third mandate was the decision of the General Assembly, in resolution 56/168 of 19 December 2001, to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to consider proposals for a “comprehensive and integral international convention” to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons, which called upon, inter alia, the Special Rapporteur on Disability to make recommendations regarding the content and practical measures that should be considered in the international convention. The report on the third mandate[17] describes consultations of the Special Rapporteur with Governments as well as non-governmental organizations, and his participation in activities of relevant intergovernmental organizations. With regard to further development of the Rules, the Special Rapporteur attached as an annex to his report (E/CN.5/2002/4) a draft “Supplement” for consideration for adoption by the United Nations. To improve the monitoring the Rules, the Special Rapportuer recommended merging that process with the regular monitoring of the World Programme of Action, which would provide Governments with a unified monitoring and evaluation instrument in the field of disability. With regard to further development of human rights and persons with disabilities, the Special Rapporteur noted that the process of elaborating an international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, called for in General Assembly resolution 56/168, may take several years and that it is important to use the momentum created by the Commission on Human Rights, reflected in CHR resolution 2000/51, to develop the disability dimension within existing United Nations human rights monitoring systems. The Special Rapporteur recommended a “twin track” approach to further development of human rights and persons with disabilities. Economic and Social Council resolution 2002/26, “Further promotion of equalization of opportunities, by for and with persons with disabilities and protection of their human rights,” of 24 July 2002:
Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/51, “Human rights of persons with disabilities,” of 25 April 2000:
III. Decision to elaborate a “comprehensive and integral” international conventionThe 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, held at Vienna from 14-25 June 1993, considered frameworks for planning, dialogue and cooperation to enable “holistic approaches” to promoting human rights. The “Vienna Programme of Action” adopted by the Conference recognizes that "all human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal, and thus should unreservedly include people with disabilities."[19] The “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban, 31 August – 8 September 2001)” considered a “world vision” and international cooperation to combat racism in the twenty-first century. The “Durban Declaration and Programme of Action” adopted by the Conference includes among its “Strategies to achieve full and effective equality” a proposal to invite the “United Nations General Assembly to consider elaborating an integral and comprehensive international convention to protect and promote the rights and dignity of disabled people.”[20] During the General Debate of the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly (2001) the Honourable Vicente Fox Quesada, President of Mexico, presented the proposal to initiate elaboration of a comprehensive and integral convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.[21] President Fox presented this proposal in the context of a call to the international community to combat poverty and social exclusion. His reaffirmed the interest of Mexico to take a lead in promoting an agenda for development, which included hosting the “International Conference on Financing for Development (Monterrey, N.L., 16 to 22 March 2002),” so that the international community could identify renewed impetus and more effective means to fulfill the commitments of the “Millennium Declaration”.[22] President Fox noted that as societies address the complex tasks of creation and equitable distribution of opportunities of global development, it is important that these efforts involve all citizens as stakeholders. He added that it would be impossible to make the world more just if certain groups are excluded from these processes, and for that reason Mexico presented a proposal to establish a “Special Committee”[23] to study the elaboration of an international convention on promoting and protecting the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, which was endorsed by General Assembly resolution 56/168. IV. Progress in elaborating a “comprehensive and integral” international conventionIn June 2002 the Government of Mexico hosted an international meeting of experts to consider proposals related to elaboration of a comprehensive and integral convention (Mexico City, 11-14 June 2002).[24] The meeting had for its consideration papers contributed by experts[25] and a draft working paper, contributed by Mexico, presenting “Elements of a future United Nations Comprehensive and Integral Convention to Promote and Protect the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (June 2002)”.[26] The meeting outcome was circulated as a General Assembly document [27] and made available to the first session of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (New York 29 July – 9 August 2002). The first session of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 56/168 had for its consideration both the “Elements” paper presented at the Mexico expert meeting and “Position papers” on the convention submitted by China[28] and by the European Union.[29] The outcome of the first session of the Ad Hoc Committee was a resolution, adopted by the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly as resolution 57/229 of 18 December 2002, [30] on further action related to elaboration of a comprehensive and integral international convention. General Assembly resolution 57/229 provides important guidance on further elaboration of a comprehensive and integral international convention. The resolution:
Briefly stated the Ad Hoc Committee requested both the views of Governments, the United Nations system as well as the non-governmental community and technical input of experts to facilitate its work on the elaboration of a comprehensive and integral international convention. The Ad Hoc Committee also requested that special attention be directed to accessibility with reasonable accommodation. V. Policy considerations in the way aheadPolicy consideration no 1: who will be covered by the comprehensive and integral international conventionA contributed paper[31] to the first session of the Ad Hoc Committee noted that the proposed convention needed to be clear in its definition of the population that is to be covered. Unlike existing human rights instruments the comprehensive and integral international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities involved populations defined by a condition - a disability - and not an attribute, such as gender, in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,[32] or age, in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[33] The definition of persons with a disability used in both the World Programme of Action and the Standard Rules was based upon work of the World Health Organization in connection with its International Classification of Impairment, Disabilities and Handicap. WHO-ICIDH is based on the health experience and its aim is to describe the consequences of disease, injury or disorder at the level of specific body function (biomedical status), of a person (body structures and functions) or of society in terms of impairment, disability and handicap (WHO-ICIDH). WHO-ICIDH implies a causal link between impairment, disability and handicap unmediated by environmental factors:
The Statistics Division of the United Nations Secretariat and the World Health Organization – among others - have worked on the question of definition and measurement of disability in the population. The Statistics Division prepared recommendations for the year 2000 round of population and housing censuses on disability and measurement of the disability dimension in Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses; revision 1.[35] Recently, the Statistics Division published Guidelines and Principles for the Development of Disability Statistics,[36] which recommend that measurement of disability be done within the conceptual framework of WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health[37] (WHO-ICF), which was endorsed by the World Health Assembly in May 2001.[38] In the ICF conceptual framework “disability” is the umbrella term for any or all of (a) an impairment of body structure or function, (b) a limitation in activities, or (c) a restriction in participation. Disability is conceived as a dynamic interaction between health conditions and environmental and personal factors.[39] WHO-ICF provides standardized concepts and terminology that can be used in measurement of disability in the population in countries. In contrast to the health experience-based work of WHO, some analysts are directing attention to what is termed the “new universe of disability”.[40] This work is reflected in life spheres approaches to disability and is characterized by a shift in analytical focus from physical, sensory or development abilities to access to opportunities in society. The units of analysis are the person, family, society and the larger environment over the life cycle. The shift in analytical focus from individual abilities to life situation opportunities represents a shift in focus from a particular activity to the day-to-day results for an individual operating in his or her environment. The key issue is access by the individual to exercise choice in decisions about well-being and livelihoods without recourse to aid or assistance. A second component of the new universe of disability relates to transition, for instance population ageing. While transition and preparation for life changes as a result of changes in physical and sensory capacities is a recognized fact of ageing, this is not a sufficient basis to include older persons among the set of persons with disabilities. The policy issue is that as populations age, the percentage of the population that experiences some degree of impairment – but which is not disabled - will increase. Important planning issues include formulating and budgeting for options to promote accessible environments and to create opportunities to acquire assistive devices. The third component of the new universe of disability relates to population groups that include persons that have a mental health condition, and those with active, acute conditions. Mr. Bengt Lindqvist, while serving as Special Rapporteur on Disability, directed special attention to the situation of persons with developmental and psychiatric disabilities and noted that they often are among the most marginalized in the societies in which they live. Important policy and planning issues include preconditions as well as preparations for participation and for social integration and improving living conditions for those who may require institutional care. The issue of determining who is to be covered by the proposed international convention on rights of persons with disabilities is complex and will require normative and substantive inputs. The intergovernmental World Health Assembly endorsed the WHO-ICF in May 2001, while elements of the “new universe of disability” – for instance as this relates to self-determination of condition – introduces a need to seek the views and input of concerned populations to identify definitions and measures appropriate to a binding international instrument. WHO-ICF provides an important but not sufficient basis to determine populations to be covered by a convention on rights of persons with a disability; the process would also involve consideration of relevant practice from national policy and law to frame the issue in a comprehensive and consistent manner. Policy consideration no 2: context of a “comprehensive and integral” international conventionWhen President Fox of Mexico proposed establishment of a Special Committee to consider proposals for a comprehensive and integral convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, he placed the proposal is the context of action to address poverty and to promote social integration. The issue of “why elaborate” a comprehensive and integral convention is presented in General Assembly resolution 56/168. The contextual aspect of the proposed convention requires further elaboration. The General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration and its associated Development Goals (MDGs) to translate shared values deemed essential for international cooperation in the twenty-first century. Significant by their absence in the MDGs is any mention of persons with a disability. The “International Conference on Financing for Development (Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March 2002),” which was the first United Nations conference to address finance and development issues, presented in its outcome document – the “Monterrey Consensus”[41] – a number of “leading actions” to support development, which include mobilizing resources for development, trade, financial and technical cooperation, debt and systemic issues. While the outcome document does not specifically address advancement of persons with disabilities in the context of development, it does provide guidance on the importance of policy commitments to mainstreaming and equity, respect for human rights and investments in people – in both economic and social infrastructure and social services and social protection – as important factors in the “common pursuit of growth, poverty eradication and sustainable development.” These are essential preconditions to advancement of persons with disabilities. The “Second World Assembly on Ageing (Madrid, 8-12 April 2002)” considered opportunities and challenges of population ageing in the twenty-first century and measures “to promote the development of a society for all ages”. The outcome document – the “Political Declaration and Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, 2002”[42] considers “older persons and disability” under “Priority direction II – Advancing health and well-being in old age,” which sets forth an objective on promoting “maintenance of maximum functional capacity throughout the life course and promotion of full participation of older persons with disabilities.[43] The “World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 26 August – 4 September 2002)” considered issues and trends related to poverty eradication, changing consumption and production patterns, and protection and management of the natural resource base for economic and social development and their implications for sustainable development of current and future generations, cognizant of the need for human dignity for all. The Summit outcome – the “Johannesburg Plan of Implementation”[44] – considers the situation of persons with disabilities in the context of “health and sustainable development” and identifies persons with disabilities as members of a “vulnerable group” of society, which require protection from debilitating diseases and special care from “causes of ill health, including environmental causes”. Contextual considerations will influence the formulation of an appropriate preamble to the proposed comprehensive and integral international convention. Policy consideration no. 3: priorities among articles of the comprehensive and integral conventionGeneral Assembly resolution 57/229 requests the Secretary-General to seek the view of Member States, among others, on questions relating to the nature and structure and elements to be considered in proposals for a convention as well as issues of follow up and monitoring. From a planning perspective, all international conventions have a similar structure in terms of a preamble, basic and special articles. As noted above, determination of the covered population and context are important first considerations in the elaboration process. It next is important to identify priorities among issues to be addressed in the basic and the specific articles to be incorporated in the convention. In the absence of priorities, any action can be claimed to be a contribution to the elaboration of the convention. Priorities provide focus in efforts and minimize overlapping and duplication. A related consideration is the need to address the structural issues related to elaboration of an appropriate preamble, the basic and specific articles before addressing implementation mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation all have resource implications for the United Nations, which are best considered in the light of convention purposes and instruments identified to translate the intent of the into results. CER / 16.05.2003 * Clinton E. Rapley (P O Box 255, Mt Tremper, NY 12457-0255, USA) – 16 May 2003. [1] “Comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities / Convención internacional amplia e integral para promover y proteger los derechos y la dignidad de las personas con discapacidad”. General Assembly resolution 56/168 of 19 December 2001, operative paragraph 1 <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disA56168e1.htm>. [2] General Assembly resolution 37/52 of 3 December 1982, operative paragraph 1. [3] A/37/351/Add.1 and Corr.1 < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/diswpa00.htm> . [4] General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 <http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm>. [5] General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm>. [6] General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm>. [7] General Assembly resolution 37/53 of 3 December 1982, proclaimed (operative paragraph 11) the period 1983-1992 the “United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons” to provide a long-term planning framework for action to further implement the World Programme. [8] “Implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons; report of the Secretary-General (A/42/561)”, paragraph 14 [9] “Summary Records” of the General Assembly: A/C.3/42/SR.16, SR.17 and SR.19; A/C.3/44/SR.16 and SR.20. [10] General Assembly resolution 44/70 of 8 December 1989, operative paragraph 2. [11] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989;and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979. [12] < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm>. [13] A/52/56, annex < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dismsre0.htm >. [14] < http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1997/eres1997-19.htm >. [15] E/CN.5/2000/3, annex < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disecn003e0.htm >. [16] < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/ecosoc2000-10.htm >. [17] E/CN.5/2002/4 < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disecn520024e0.htm >. [18] Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1995, Supplement No. 3 (E/1995/22), annex IV <http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/4b0c449a9ab4ff72c12563ed0054f17d?Opendocument>. [19] Report of the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14-25 June 1993 (A/CONF.157.24), Part I, chap. III, sect. I, para.22 <http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.CONF.157.23.En?OpenDocument>. [20] Report of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, 31 August – 8 September 2001 (A/CONF.189/12, paragraph 180) <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/02-documents-cnt.html>. [21] < http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/56/statements/ 011110mexicoS.htm >. [22] General Assembly 55/2 of 8 September 2000 <http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm>. [23] “Comité Especial” – or an Ad Hoc Committee [24] The meeting was executed by the United Nations, represented by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and implemented by the Mexico City sub-regional office of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean <http://www.sre.gob.mx/discapacidad/>. [25] <http://www.sre.gob.mx/discapacidad/papers.htm>. [26] <http://www.sre.gob.mx/discapacidad/elementsproposal.htm>; the original text is in Spanish <http://www.sre.gob.mx/discapacidad/elementospropuesta.htm>. [27] A/57/212 <http://www.sre.gob.mx/discapacidad/informefinal.htm>. [28] Comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities: position paper submitted by China (A/AC.265/WP.3) <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/adhocmeetaac265w3e.htm>. [29] Comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities: position paper submitted by the European Union (A/AC.265/WP.2) <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/adhocmeetaac265w2e.htm>. [30] <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ares57_229e.htm>. [31] Mathiason, John R. “Considerations for the proposed international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities (July 2002)” <http://www.worldenable.net/mexico2002/considerations.htm>. [32] General Assembly resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/e1cedaw.htm>. [33] General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/treaties/crc.htm >. [34] WHO-ICIDH, Geneva, 1980. [35] United Nations publication, Sales No. E. 98.XVII.8, paras. 2.258-2.277 <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/pubs/gesgrid.asp?id=127>. The online guide is published in the Adobe® Portable Document Format (pdf), which may introduce accessibility considerations for some users. [36] United Nations publication, Sales No. E.01.XVII.15 <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/disability/disabilityguidelines.pdf>. [37] WHO, Geneva, 2001 <http://www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm>. [38] <http://www.who.int/classification/icf/whares/wha-en.pdf>. [39] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Disability Data Briefing, “The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)”, No. 20 (Occasional series) June 2002. <www.aihw.gov.au/disability/icf/ddb20/ddb20.pdf >. [40] Seelman, Katherine D. Change and challenge; the integration of the new paradigm of disability into research and practice, "Vision for the 21st century: population, health care, technology and employment"; paper presented to "National council on rehabilitation education conference (Vancouver, WA (USA), 8 March 1998)" <http://www.ncddr/org/new/speeches/ncre/ncre4.html>. [41] Report of the International Conference on Financing for Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March 2002 (A/CONF.198/11) < http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/DocumentsIndex.htm >. [42] Report of the Second World Assembly on Ageing, Madrid, 8-12 April 2002 (A/CONF.197/9) < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/ageing/waa/index.html >. [43] Ibid., paragraphs 87-90. [44] < http://www.johannesbugsumit.org/hhtml/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm >. |
