Human Rights

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND REPORTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER AND THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Summary

The present study focuses on legal measures required for the ratification and effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Chapter 1 clarifies the steps States need to take at both national and international level for the ratification of the Convention and highlights key issues for consideration relating to reservations and declarations lodged on the Convention.
Chapter 2 identifies measures required by States to give effect to the Convention in the national legal order and highlights areas where adoption of or amendment to legislation might be required for compliance. Illustrative examples are provided in the areas of equality and non-discrimination, accessibility, legal capacity, liberty and security, independent living, education, and work and employment.
Chapter 3 reviews the core features of the national monitoring and implementation system envisaged by the Convention and highlights aspects where adoption or amendment to legislation might be required.
Chapter 4 sets out conclusions and recommendations for ratification and effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

It is our pleasant surprise to remark that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights acceptetd our demand put forth in our statutes article 2.(B) h. to abolish the UN resolution 46/119 of December 17, 1991 on the treatment of "mental patients"!

In a report to the General assembly of UN of "on enhancing awareness and understanding of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" the High Commissioner definitly states, that

the insanity defense "must be abolished" (see Article 47 below)
and that the "Convention radically departs " from the UN resolution ...on treatment of "mental patients" (see Article 48 below)
that all mental health laws using the pretex "as the likelihood of them posing a danger to themselves or others" "must be abolished" (see Article 49 below)

47.In the area of criminal law, recognition of the legal capacity of persons with disabilitiesrequires abolishing a defence based on the negation of criminal responsibility because of the existence of a mental or intellectual disability.41Instead disability-neutral doctrines on the subjective element of the crime should be applied, which take into consideration the situation of the individual defendant. Procedural accommodations both during the pretrial and trial phase of the proceedings might be required in accordance with article 13 of the Convention, and implementing norms must be adopted.5. Right to liberty and security of the person

48. A particular challenge in the context of promoting and protecting the right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities is the legislation and practice related to health care and more specifically to institutionalization without the free and informed consent of the person concerned (also often referred to as involuntary or compulsory institutionalization). Prior to the entrance into force of the Convention, the existence of a mental disability represented a lawful ground for deprivation of liberty and detention under international human rights law.42 The Convention radically departs from this approach by forbidding deprivation of liberty based on the existence of any disability, including mental or intellectual, as discriminatory. Article 14, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention unambiguously states that โthe existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of libertyโ. Proposals made during the drafting of the Convention to limit the prohibition of detention to cases โsolelyโ determined by disability were rejected.43 As a result, unlawful detention encompasses situations where the deprivation of liberty is grounded in the combination between a mental or intellectual disability and other elements such as dangerousness, or care and treatment. Since such measures are partly justified by the personโs disability, they are to be considered discriminatory and in violation of the prohibition of deprivation of liberty on the grounds of disability, and the right to liberty on an equal basis with others prescribed by article 14.

49. Legislation authorizing the institutionalization of persons with disabilities on the grounds of their disability without their free and informed consent must be abolished. This must include the repeal of provisions authorizing institutionalization of persons with disabilities for their care and treatment without their free and informed consent, as well as provisions authorizing the preventive detention of persons with disabilities on grounds such as the likelihood of them posing a danger to themselves or others, in all cases in which such grounds of care, treatment and public security are linked in legislation to an apparent or diagnosed mental illness. This should not be interpreted to say that persons with disabilities cannot be lawfully subject to detention for care and treatment or to preventive detention, but that the legal grounds upon which restriction of liberty is determined must be de-linked from the disability and neutrally defined so as to apply to all persons on an equal basis.

Please download eport to the General assembly of UN of "on enhancing awareness and understanding of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiets" from : http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/A.HRC.10.48.pdf

Please download Background and Contributions from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/HRCResolution79.htm

By: HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
When: 7/2/2014