The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Negotiations, Provisions and Early Implementation Reviews

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities grew out of longstanding United Nations discussions on equal participation. The 1993 Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities offered policy guidance but were not themselves binding as a treaty. In December 2001, Mexico's government proposed in the UN General Assembly that an ad hoc committee be established to consider a comprehensive convention protecting the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.

The Ad Hoc Committee held its first session in August 2002, discussing the reasons for a new convention and procedures for civil society participation. Its eighth session completed negotiations on the draft in August 2006, after which the text underwent technical review. On 13 December that year, the General Assembly adopted the convention by consensus. Organizations of persons with disabilities took part in the process. The first Conference of States Parties in 2008 also paid particular tribute to the Mexican advocate who had advanced the initiative, Gilberto Rincón Gallardo.

References: [2] [3]

The convention opened for signature at UN Headquarters in New York on 30 March 2007. Article 43 provided that signatory states still had to ratify it, while states that had not signed could accede. Regional integration organizations to which member states had transferred relevant competences followed procedures of formal confirmation or accession. Adoption of the text, signature and consent to be legally bound were related but different steps.

The United Nations Treaty Series records that Jamaica ratified on the day the convention opened for signature, and Tunisia on 2 April 2008. Under Article 45, the convention entered into force on the thirtieth day after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, which in practice was 3 May 2008. Entry-into-force dates were calculated separately for countries joining later. Thus, 2006 established the common text; it did not mean that every country assumed the convention's full obligations that year.

References: [1]

Article 1 connected long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments with the various barriers that hinder equal participation. This formulation extended attention to environments and institutions: restrictions on a person's life could not be explained solely by their physical condition. Article 3 identified freedom to make one's own choices, independence, non-discrimination, full participation and accessibility as general principles.

Article 2 also defined reasonable accommodation as necessary and appropriate adjustments in a particular case that do not impose a disproportionate or undue burden; denial of such accommodation was included within discrimination on the basis of disability. Article 4 required states parties, when developing and implementing relevant laws and policies, to consult closely with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations. Rights holders were therefore also participants in decision-making.

References: [1]

Article 9's accessibility obligations covered buildings, roads, transport, information and communications in both urban and rural areas. States had to identify and remove barriers, establish minimum standards and consider private entities providing facilities and services to the public. Information services, readily understandable signage and sign-language assistance were all components of these arrangements.

Article 19 provided that persons with disabilities should be able to choose where and with whom they lived on an equal basis, without being obliged to accept a particular living arrangement, and should have access to services needed for community living. Article 24 required inclusive education at all levels, with reasonable accommodation and necessary support. The treaty connected housing, education and public services with individual choice; realizing these commitments required coordination of laws, personnel and resources.

References: [1]

Article 33 required governments to designate focal points for implementation and consider an interdepartmental coordination mechanism. States also had to establish a monitoring framework that included independent mechanisms and fully involved persons with disabilities and their representative organizations. At the international level, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, composed of experts serving in their personal capacities, examined national implementation reports. An initial report was due within two years of the convention's entry into force for the state concerned, followed by reports at least every four years.

The first Conference of States Parties opened in New York on 31 October 2008, with Mexico's representative, Heller, elected president. It discussed how the convention connected human rights protection with development work, and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs served as its secretariat. Intergovernmental discussion and independent expert review proceeded separately: the former exchanged experience on implementation, while the latter offered observations and recommendations based on reports.

References: [1] [3]

In April 2011, the committee examined Tunisia's initial report. It welcomed the country's consultations with organizations of persons with disabilities during preparation, while noting continuing uncertainty over the domestic application of reasonable accommodation and gaps in accessible facilities, information and transport services. It recommended explicitly including denial of reasonable accommodation within discrimination, and examining enforcement of accessibility legislation and the resources devoted to it.

Education was another focus of the review. The committee noted uneven implementation of inclusive education among schools, a lack of equipment to accommodate children with disabilities in some schools, and a continuing need for stronger training of teachers and administrators. These were findings and recommendations from the review at that time, rather than evidence that the reforms had already been completed. They show that after a treaty enters into force, the way its legal provisions reach schools and public services must still be examined item by item.

References: [4]