Programme :
Statement by Susan Appleyard
Programme Officer
Asia-Pacific Regional Office
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
at the
UNESCAP Workshop on Regional Follow-up to the Third and
Fourth Sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral
International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and
Dignity of Persons with Disabilities
11 October 2004, Bangkok
Good morning distinguished delegates.
I have seen from the summaries of discussion of the third and fourth
session of the Ad Hoc Committee that the article on monitoring remains to be
considered. Therefore I would like to focus my presentation this morning on
monitoring mechanisms both at the international and national level.
As you know, once this Convention is adopted by the General Assembly it
will become binding international human rights law like the seven other
human rights treaties. This will mean that any state that ratifies the
convention will be legally bound to implement the articles of the convention
in their domestic legislation, and their judicial system, in policy, and in
programmes. Currently there are seven treaty bodies established to monitor
the implementation of the existing seven human rights conventions at the
international level. Article 37-50 of the Bangkok Draft refer to the
establishment and role of a committee to monitor the implementation of the
convention. At the national level monitoring is done by a number of
organizations some independent of the government and others being arms of
the government. Articles 34-36 of the Bangkok Draft refer to the national
implementation framework for this convention. In other regions these
treaties are also monitored by regional bodies – here in Asia-Pacific we
have no such regional body.
All of the existing treaty bodies have some common characteristics.
Firstly, they are made up of between 10-23 experts who are unpaid,
part-time and do not represent any organization. You will see that article
37 of the Bangkok Draft outlines similar regulations for a Committee to
monitor the future disabilities convention that we will be discussing for
the next two days. The Bangkok Draft further proposes that the committee
include a majority of members with disabilities.
Secondly, the existing Committees meet two to three times per year in
either New York or Geneva. The Bangkok Draft, in article 40 point 4,
proposes the committee established to monitor the disabilities convention
shall meet not only at UN headquarters but will also rotationally meet in
the regional commissions. This is a new idea and one welcomed by many.
Thirdly, Committees examine state party reports of implementation
following ratification of the associated treaty. Like the other human rights
treaties the Bangkok Draft would call for a first report to be submitted one
year after ratification and following that every 5 years. State parties must
report to the existing treaty bodies every two to fives years. The Bangkok
Draft, unlike other conventions, explicitly calls for greater civil society
involvement in the process of drafting each report.
Following consideration of a state party report all treaty bodies issue
concluding observations. These concluding observations may take into account
information provided by United Nations agencies. The treaty bodies can also
receive shadow reports prepared by NGOs on the situation in their country.
Article 39 of the Bangkok draft refers to the issuing of concluding
observations.
Four of the existing human rights treaties bodies can accept individual
complaints pertaining to claims of violations by a state party of any of the
rights set out in the treaty. For the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women this is contained in an associated optional
protocol. For the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination and the Convention against Torture the individual complaints
mechanism is contained within the treaty itself, for CAT it is article 22
and for CERD it is article 14. State parties who ratify these conventions
must make a specific declaration to allow the activation of this individual
complaints mechanism. In the case of ICCPR and CEDAW the optional protocol
allowing for individual complaints must be ratified separately. These are
all examples of an opt-in complaints mechanism.
I understand the inclusion of an individual complaints mechanism in the
future disabilities convention has been debated at length and will continue
to be debated here over the next two days. Several NGOs and governments have
strong advocated for the inclusion of a complaints mechanism. Articles 41-45
of the Bangkok Draft focus on such a mechanism. The current draft includes a
complaints mechanism following the opt-in style of the other treaties.
Similarly the inclusion of an article allowing for an inquiry procedure
has been much discussed. Of the existing human rights treaties CAT and CEDAW
have the power to conduct inquiries into credible allegations of massive or
systematic violations. In the case of CAT this is through article 20 of the
convention and for CEDAW it is through an optional protocol which states
must ratify separately. For CAT the power to investigate systematic
violations is contained in article 20. Article 28 however allows for states
to opt-out by declaring they do not recognize the competence of the
Committee provided for in article 20.
The Bangkok Draft allows for such an inquiry procedure in article 46 and
also gives the committee the power to request a state party to inform the
committee of measures taken in response to an inquiry. Article 48 of the
Bangkok Draft allows state parties to opt-out of the inquiry procedure.
Equally important to the international monitoring mechanisms are national
protection mechanisms. The current draft article 25 on a national
implementation framework will require continued debate and elaboration.
Currently the draft calls for the creation of a government focal point for
matters relating to the convention, for consideration be given to the
establishment of a coordination mechanism and the establishment of a
national level framework. The role of existing national human rights
institutions in the monitoring of the future convention must be considered.
The Australian and Hong Kong commissions are good examples of the potential
role national institutions can play in relation to the rights of people with
disabilities. The submission of the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human
Rights Institutions to the 4th session of the Ad Hoc Committee clearly
outlines the role such a national institution could play in monitoring the
convention at the national level. An article regarding domestic remedies
could also provide for the protection of the rights of individuals and
groups to complain to an independent and impartial tribunal and to receive
free legal assistance if necessary. This may require some consideration over
the next two days.
I will not discuss monitoring at the regional level as Asia-Pacific
remains the only region of the world without a human rights charter and
subsequently without a body to monitor human rights at the regional level.
There are far more articles for debate over the next two days than just
those I have mentioned here and I wish you every success as you carry out
your deliberations.
Thank you.
Return to top |
