Transcript CRPD Implementation and Monitoring

International human rights monitoring
mechanisms and systemic advocacy
Therese Sands
Executive Director, Leadership Team
People with Disability Australia
September 2011
Overview of the mechanisms (1)

Reports to the United Nations’ (UN) Treaty Bodies:

Government Reports on each Treaty (every four years)

NGO Shadow Reports on each Treaty
Treaty bodies:
Human Rights Committee (Covenant on Civil & Political Rights)
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
Overview of the mechanisms (2)

Reports to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (HRC):

Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
-
Newest UN human rights mechanism (2006)
-
Conducted by HRC member countries (peer review)
-
Government Report on human rights situation in their country (20 pages)
-
National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) Report
-
NGO UPR Report (5 pages)
Overview of the mechanisms (3)

Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council (HRC)

mechanism to address specific country situations or thematic issues in all
parts of the world

33 thematic and 8 country mandates

‘Special Rapporteur’, ‘Independent Expert’, ‘Working Group’

undertake country visits or seek clarification on issues

Report to the HRC on findings
Opportunities for engagement (1)

UN Treaty Body Reporting Processes:

Government report - consultations

NGO Shadow report working group / consultations

Pre-sessional UN Committee meetings and Questions

NGO delegation to UN:
- lobbying Committee members
- making formal Statement to the Committee

Constructive Dialogue

Concluding Comments
Opportunities for engagement (2)

Universal Periodic Review (Australia January 2011)

NGO Working Group – range of human rights groups

Government report – comment

Liaison with Australian Human Rights Commission

Preparation of report – identify key issues

Development of specific themed factsheets (lobby documents)

Presentation to Foreign Missions in Australia

NGO delegation to UN:
- lobbying HRC members / countries on specific issues

UPR recommendations

Government response to the recommendations
Domestic advocacy
using UN recommendations

Evidence-based advocacy tools – argument credibility (media releases /
submissions / training / representations to Governments /report card
comparison / complaints)

Planning tools – prioritise key issues for organisational focus, advocacy planning
and ‘test case’ complaints

Resources – guidance on key issues; and guidance on how issues are framed in
terms of human rights; analysis of budget processes; election platforms; funding
allocations

Data collection and analysis - reframe / capture data in terms of human rights
not service compliance (consistency across agencies and jurisdictions).

Case studies – capturing human rights stories
Case Study – Sterilisation (1)

Late 1990s / early 2000s: disability advocacy and reports (HREOC)
- response to Marion’s case and incidences of unlawful sterilisation

2003 – Joint Standing Committee of Attorneys General (SCAG)
working group to consider national, uniform legislation for the authorisation
of minors with disability
submissions made to SCAG

2005 – Australia reviewed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
- PWD participates on NGO Shadow Report Group and provides information
on sterilisation for NGO report.
Case Study – Sterilisation (2)

2005 – UN CRC Committee Concluding Comments
“The Committee also notes that a Governmental Working Group is
addressing the issue of sterilization of children with so called “decision
making” disabilities…
Conclusion: “prohibit the sterilization of children, with or without disabilities,
and promote and implement other measures of prevention of unwanted
pregnancies, e.g. injection of contraceptives, when appropriate”.
(paragraphs 45 and 46)
Case Study – Sterilisation (3)

UN CRC Committee conclusion used to support advocacy - letters, media,
submissions, meetings and representations.

2006 – PWD member of CEDAW Shadow Report Working Group and NGO
delegation to UN CEDAW Committee review of Australia.

2006 – SCAG releases Children with Intellectual Disabilities (Regulation of
Sterilisation) Bill 2006.
-
UN CRPD Committee conclusion included in submissions opposing Bill.
-
Draft CRPD Article 7, Children with Disabilities also used to support
submission.
Case Study – Sterilisation (4)

2006 - CRPD adopted; 2008 – CRPD ratified by Australia

2008 – SCAG removes the issue of national, uniform legislation for the
authorisation of sterilisation from its agenda:
-
number of reported sterilisations appears to be significantly less
-
doctors and hospitals have a better and understanding of their legal
obligations
-
alternatives to surgical procedures to manage menstruation and
contraceptive needs of women are increasingly available
-
existing processes in each jurisdiction appear to be working adequately
-
limited benefit in developing model legislation
Case Study – Sterilisation (5)

2010 – Australia reviewed by UN CEDAW Committee:
-
PWD participates on NGO Shadow Report Group and provides information
on sterilisation for NGO report (arguments supported by CRC Committee
Concluding Comments; CRPD Article 6, Women with disabilities; and Article
23, Respect for the home and the family)
-
Women with Disabilities Australia (WWDA) has a representative on the NGO
delegation
Case Study – Sterilisation (6)

2010 – UN CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments:
“The Committee also notes with concern that non-therapeutic sterilizations of
women and girls with disabilities continue to be practiced in some states in
Australia and notes that the Commonwealth Government considers this to be a
matter for state governments to regulate”.
Conclusion: “The Committee recommends that the State party enact national
legislation prohibiting, except where there is a serious threat to life or health, the
use of sterilisation of girls, regardless of whether they have a disability, and of adult
women with disabilities in the absence of their fully informed and free consent”.
(paragraph 42 and 43)
Case Study – Sterilisation (7)

2011 – Universal Periodic Review of Australia
-

PWD participates on NGO Working Group
PWD provides information to NGO delegation in Geneva during lobbying
UPR Working Group Draft Report Recommendations:
“Comply with the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child
and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women concerning
the sterilization of women and girls with disabilities” (Denmark);
Case Study – Sterilisation (8)
“Enact national legislation prohibiting the use of non-therapeutic sterilisation of
children, regardless of whether they have a disability, and of adults with disability
without their informed and free consent” (United Kingdom);
“Repeal all legal provisions allowing sterilization of persons with disabilities without
their consent and for non-therapeutic reasons” (Belgium);
“Abolish non-therapeutic sterilization of women and girls with disabilities”
(Germany).
Case Study – Sterilisation (9)

Australian Government Response: accepted-in-part
“the Attorney-General intends to initiate further discussions with State and
Territory counterparts.”

Ongoing advocacy pressure using UPR, CEDAW and CRC recommendations:
- discussions with Attorney-General’s department
- meetings with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
- engagement in dialogue with advocacy activities at the international level

AHRC publicly announced its position (same as NGO position)