Segment 7: International monitoring and implementation

*Essential reading materials

Note: the recorded lectures (links at bottom of page) supplement the readings for this segment and relate to each of the topic areas.

Basic resources

CRPD Articles 34-39, 40, Optional Protocol*

CRPD Committee website*

CRPD Committee Rules of Procedure and Working Methods

CRPD General Comments

Conference of States Parties*

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Disability Adviser

Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Further readings: Information on work of UN treaty bodies (UN OHCHR website); Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Disability

  • Questions to consider:

What authority does the Committee have to monitor states parties’ compliance with the Convention?

How can candidates for the CRPD Committee demonstrate their independence?

What kinds of experience or knowledge would demonstrate expertise in the human rights of persons with disabilities?

What role do General Comments play in the work of the CRPD Committee (and other treaty bodies)? How do they affect the obligations of states parties?

How can the Conference of States Parties most effectively contribute to implementation of the CRPD?

What is the role of human rights mechanisms, including other treaty bodies, in promoting and protecting the human rights of people with disabilities?

How do the SDGs relate to the CRPD? Are they a useful tool for implementation?

**

Country reviews

UN Web TV archived webcasts of CRPD Committee public sessions*

Guidelines on periodic reporting, including under the simplified reporting procedure*

CRPD Guidance Note on Constructive Dialogue with HR Treaty Bodies*

Sessions of CRPD Committee*

Lists of Issues of CRPD Committee (arranged by date of adoption)

Concluding Observations of CRPD Committee (arranged by date of adoption)

Compilation of CRPD Concluding Observations by article of the Convention (International Disability Alliance)

  • Questions to consider:

What is the value of constructive dialogue – 1) to the state party, 2) to the Committee, 3) to DPOs?

What obligations does the state party have in relation to the review process and the Concluding Observations?

How can a state party ensure that their report is accurate and comprehensive?

Should DPOs participate in the preparation of a state party’s report?

How can the Committee evaluate information in the state party’s report, the parallel reports of NGOs, and other information submitted about a state party?

What might affect the Committee’s decision as to whether to include or omit particular points raised by NGOs?

How effective have DPOs of people with psychosocial disabilities been in having their issues reflected in Lists of Issues and Concluding Observations?

Is it preferable for Concluding Observations to be highly specific, e.g. to call for the repeal of a particular piece of legislation, or to be more general, e.g. to urge the state party to repeal all provisions that authorize deprivation of liberty in mental health facilities?

**

Individual communications and inquiries

Communications and Inquiry Procedure  under CRPD Optional Protocol *

Recent Jurisprudence and Pending Cases (individual communications database)*

CRPD Committee reports on inquiries (database) and Inquiry concerning Hungary*

Exhaustion of domestic remedies – Intl Justice Resource Center*

Minkowitz, Third-party intervention to CRPD Committee

Communications to Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council (consider as alternative to CRPD procedure, especially Working Group on Arbitrary Detention)*

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Working Methods *

WGAD cases from Japan 1 and 2 and Urgent Appeal to Norway (WGAD + Special Rapporteurs)

See also Principles and Guidelines on Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court

  • Questions to consider:

What is the value of individual communications from the point of view of those concerned and from the point of view of domestic reform?

What is their value to the CRPD Committee and to the advocacy community?

Are these procedures accessible to ordinary people and DPOs without legal representation?

What are the pros and cons of individual communications under the CRPD Optional Protocol, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention procedure, and communications to other Special Procedures?

What factors would you consider in deciding which to use in a case of forced psychiatric intervention?

How does the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement for the Optional Protocol affect these cases?

How does the standard applied by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention compared with the CRPD Guidelines on Article 14?

What kind of information would advocates need to submit to persuade the Committee to undertake an inquiry?

From an advocacy point of view, what is the best way to understand the relationship of UN procedures to domestic ones, to use both for maximum value?

**

Parallel reports and other ways to engage UN mechanisms

(Note: terminology may be parallel report, shadow report, alternative report, civil society report, etc.)

Guidelines for the participation of Disabled Persons Organizations (DPOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)in the work of the Committee*

Using UN Human Rights Mechanisms (from survivor perspective)*

10 Steps to Writing Shadow Report (USA-based and focused on ICCPR)

IDA 2010 Guide to Shadow Reporting (especially section 3 on Reporting Process; note bias in favor of DPO coalition, which may or may not be effective for survivor DPOs)

Using shadow reports for advocacy (online discussion in 2009 hosted by Regional Centre for Minorities, useful re pros and cons)

Recent examples by survivor/psychosocial disability DPOs (or with significant input): 21st CRPD session – see Norway (We Shall Overcome), LOI and COs; and Spain (Activament and Hierbabuena) and COs; 22nd CRPD session – see Australia (Victims of Psychiatrists) and COs; India (National CRPD Coalition India) and COs; 13th CRPD pre-session – see China/Hong Kong (HK Coalition for Rights of PWD) and LOI; and Indonesia (Forgotten People) and LOI; 23rd CRPD session (upcoming – watch for additions and COs) – see France (Advocacy France, Truth and Justice for Nathalie, Depsychiatriser) and LOI; Japan (Advocacy Centre of Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities, Japan National Group of Mentally Disabled Persons) and LOI

  • Questions to consider:

Is shadow reporting adversarial towards the government?

What protections exist against retaliation by states? How can DPOs in authoritarian countries participate effectively?

How can survivor/psychosocial disability DPOs ensure that their issues are fully presented in the reporting process? Is it advisable to participate in DPO coalitions?

What do you need to include in a report? What do you not need to include?

Who should be involved in preparing the shadow report of your organization? Do you need technical experts? Should it be a participatory activity of the membership?

How can we maximize the value of shadow reports as human rights documentation?

What can you do to increase the likelihood that the CRPD Committee will act on your suggested questions and recommendations?

What can you do to increase the likelihood that the government will act on the CRPD Committee’s Concluding Observations?

**

Archived materials

See Segment 6; those lectures covered both 6 and 7.

**

Assignment

Write your responses to the questions under each topic.

As we continue to work on revisions to this website, we hope to provide webforms and also forums for you to record your reflections and share them.

**

(c) Tina Minkowitz 2020-2022