866th Meeting, 35th Session, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

Yes.
Good afternoon, Excellencies, Distinguished colleagues, representative of the Organization of Persons with Disabilities.
Ladies and gentlemen, I order to open the 866th meeting of the Committee on the rights of Persons with Disabilities.
It is my great pleasure to welcome you to this symposium entitled CLPD at 20, the Committee's Journey, Current Challenges and future directions.
I am a Mi Yang in or chair of the committee from the Republic of Korea.
20 years after the adoption of the convention, this symposi provide an important opportunity to reflect on the committee's journey, consider the challenges that lies ahead, and identify priorities for the convention's third decade.
Interpretation is being provided during this meeting in for official languages of the United Nations, Arabic, English, French and Spanish, as well as an international sign language.
Real time captionings is also being provided, and this meeting is being webcast on UN webTV to ensure that all speakers have an equal opportunity to contribute and that accessibility services operate smoothly I kindly ask everyone to keep to the time allocated in the program.
Now, we will begin part one entitled Opening remark, the Convention at 20.
It is my pleasure to invite miss Award Double, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights to deliver the first opening remarks.
Miss Double, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Your Excellencies, distinguished members of the committee, representatives of Organizations of Persons with Disabilities.
It is a pleasure and a privilege to join you today as we mark the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Over the past two decades, the convention has transformed the global understanding of disability, helping to move the conversation from charity and welfare and rightly towards rights, equality and inclusion.
This transformation by the convention has inspired legal reforms, strengthened advocacy, and opened new spaces for persons with disabilities to claim their rights and to participate in decisions that affect their lives.
We see the initial steps towards legal capacity reforms are emerging, for example, in Colombia, in Costa Rica, in Peru, and in Spain.
Yet the central challenge remains implementation, and that is ensuring that the rights affirmed in the convention are realized in practice and in the daily lives of persons with disabilities.
We must work together to remove barriers that continue to restrict independent living and that hinder participation and inclusion in the community.
Disability inclusion is also too often approached as a specialized policy concern, rather than recognized as integral to development, to governance, and to human rights action.
As a result, disability is frequently addressed only after planning processes are well advanced and opportunities to ensure the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations have already been missed.
Through OECHRs engagement with member states and United Nations country teams, we see that many barriers experienced by persons with disabilities at a national level are deeply rooted in wider structural challenges.
These barriers often relate to how governance systems function, how data is collected and used, and how public services are delivered, and how participation is enabled.
This is why closing the gap between state parties international commitments and their country level implementation remains so important.
The recommendations of this committee and other international human rights mechanisms can make a decisive difference when they are translated international priorities into development plans and into concrete action on the ground.
Our office works with governments and civil society to bridge the implementation gap.
Some examples include in Mexico, where we build capacity on care and support, and we work with Mexico city authorities to improve referral systems and to reduce demand for institutionalized services.
Moldova, where we support improvements in service provision for persons with disabilities and for stronger legal legal protections.
The occupied Palestinian territory where we support monitoring and protection, cluster coordination to ensure that persons with disabilities are included in humanitarian response.
Distinguished experts, looking ahead, one of our shared priorities must therefore be to strengthen the bridge between global human rights standards and national and local remedies.
This means going beyond targeted programs to examine systems, institutions, and decisions that shape where rights are enjoyed in practice.
It means integrating disability inclusion across policies and planning processes and ensuring that persons with disabilities and their representative organizations are engaged from the onset.
It also calls for sustained engagement with governments, with national human rights institutions, with UN partners, and above all, with organizations of persons with disabilities.
It requires disability inclusion to be reflected in country analysis, in cooperation frameworks, and broader efforts to advance sustainable development, social cohesion, and human rights for all.
As we celebrate this anniversary, let us reaffirm our collective commitment not only to the principles of the convention, but also to their practical realization in every country and in every community.
The true measure of success will be whether persons with disabilities can fully enjoy their rights and can participate equally in all aspects of life.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, miss Dabo.
Yes.
Next, I would like to invite miss Peggy Hicks, Director of the thematic and Special Procedure Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Mr.
Hicks, you have the floor.
Thank you very much Chair.
Excellencies, colleagues and friends.
As the Deputy High Commissioner just noted, it's indeed an honor to be with you today to celebrate 20 years of the CRPD.
Just a moment for personal reflection.
I was mentioning to Miriam that I was living in New York at the time the CRPD was adopted, I just moved there.
While I wasn't actively involved in the process, a good friend of mine was who worked full time for an NGO that was there negotiating, working very hard to make the convention as strong as it could be.
I mentioned that simply because the very fact that she was there and engaged full time is part of what made the CRPD what it is.
It was the fact that for the first time really in a treaty process, the mantra of nothing about us without us was lived and civil society and people with disability were able to have the space to be part of the conversations and the convention is a tribute to how important that is.
Only through such a process can you arrive at a convention that is as powerful and strong as this one that we're celebrating today.
So this anniversary is a moment, as has been said, to recognize the extraordinary progress achieved through collective effort and opportunity to look ahead to the work still required to make disability inclusion a reality across the United Nations system and beyond.
So to complement the DHC's remarks, we want to reflect a bit on our own experience within the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in implementing the United Nations Disability Inclusion strategy and what we've learned through that about accountability, institutional change, and sustained commitment.
The UN disability inclusion strategy, UDS, was an innovative development.
It challenges the UN system to be more intentional on disability inclusion and push the organization to become more responsive to persons with disabilities.
I personally recall the day in 2018 when former Special Rapporteur and Ambassador later Catalina Devnas requested our office's support to develop US, an initiative that we supported from day one and to which our office remains committed today.
Bringing this idea to fruition was a collective effort.
It involved, of course, the leadership of Ambassador Devons, UN entities, including ILO, UNDP, of course, the Secretary-General Office, and the fundamental role played by our own disability rights advisor Fakuta Chavez Pines.
UDS was adopted in 2019 as a landmark accountability framework that remains a strong example of what can be achieved when the system works together and around a common goal.
I think it's actually a model, of course, that can be replicated not just within the UN system and elsewhere.
How we do on it really matters.
Implementing UDS has been a challenging experience, but it also mobilized the work of our office and changed how we worked.
It moved us from our work on disability inclusion from aspiration to accountability.
It gives entities a common framework, measurable indicators, and a basis for honest self assessment.
So looking at that self assessment in our own latest reporting, our office exceeded requirements in seven indicators, including leadership, strategic planning, institutional arrangements, reasonable accommodation, evaluation, and joint initiatives.
We also met requirements in capacity development and communications.
These results show real progress, but they also show where further effort is needed.
We are only approaching requirements in six indicators and further progress will be needed in those areas, including in relation to consultation with persons with disabilities, accessibility, procurement, programs and projects, country program documents, and employment.
The UDS also pushed us to implement further changes.
Our 2024 2027 organizational Management Plan, basically the strategic plan for our office, now integrates disability inclusion across all six pillars of our work, but both as a specific focus and as a cross cutting objective.
As of August 2026, OHCHR applies the OECD disability marker.
The latter is a milestone in our way of functioning, and it will help us track disability inclusion from planning through the results, including by linking resources and outcomes more systematically.
Dear committee members, this progress today gives us a strong foundation, but it's not an endpoint.
With the adoption of 2.0 this year, the level of ambition and of accountability has increased.
The new accountability framework expands 15-19 indicators and brings new challenges which we are committed to meeting with the same determination that has guided our work to date.
OHCHR is working towards our first baseline report to be submitted in 2027.
The CRPD, as I've said, changed the normative landscape in terms of disability rights.
UDS is helping us change institutional practice.
OHCHR has made important progress, but sustaining that progress will require continued accountability, adequate resources, and close partnership with persons with disabilities and their representative organizations.
Continued support, of course, from member states and partners will therefore be essential if we're to sustain this progress and to meet the higher level of ambition set by UDS 2.0.
I'd like to conclude by thanking our historic partners in civil society, including on my right, the International Disability Alliance and our new partners in the Women's Rights Movement as we move forward together.
Of course, our great thanks and gratitude to you to the CRPD Committee, members past and present.
Our office has seen firsthand the impact of the work that you do has done in shaping international human rights law and practice and advancing the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities around the world.
We look forward to continuing this work together.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, miss Hicks.
Now, we will hear from the Miriam Man, Senior Manager on behalf of the president of the International Disability Alliance.
You have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
Excellencies, colleagues, friends, good afternoon and happy 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Allow me to convey warm greetings on behalf of IDA president, doctor Nawaf Tabara was here at the opening of this session but could not join us today.
Excellencies, 20 years ago, the CRPD was adopted.
Paving the way for the most innovative general obligation, the effective and meaningful engagement of persons with disabilities through their representative organization.
This obligation gave power to the voice, the voice of 1.6 billion persons with disabilities across the world.
It declared that while persons with disabilities and organizations of persons with disabilities had far too long been left out of decision making processes, post 2006, leaving them behind was no longer an option.
Participation breathes life into rights.
This is exactly the impact of the CRPD over the last 20 years, Article 43 and Article 333.
In March 2024, one of the OPD representative who had participated in Zambia's review had this to say, Participating in this session enabled us to experience firsthand synergy between contribution made by Zampian Organizations of persons with disabilities and insightful questions posed by the committee to the state delegation.
This was incredibly gratifying, end of the quote.
This statement mirrors comments we received from OPDs from every corner of the world at every session of the CRPD committee of the CRPD committee.
Either, on this 20th anniversary of the CRPD, takes this opportunity to thank the CRPD committee for setting strong standards on participation through organizations of persons with disabilities.
The committee has consistently provided opportunities to hear directly from organizations of persons with disabilities, from alternative reports to private session.
I would like to underline the privilege and the joy that organizations of persons with disabilities have communicated in the private sessions that they get to engage and have precedents in terms of interacting with the CRPD.
Organizations of persons with disabilities do not take this for granted, but they are the ones to get the microphone to speak first, to address the committee of the issues.
The CRPD committee has set a precedent that has empowered organizations of persons with disabilities to take up other spaces within treaty bodies and push for disability inclusion and stronger standards on disability rights.
We'd also like to acknowledge the CRPD committee for delivering in a very challenging landscape.
Years, it has not only held member states accountable and developed jurisprudence on various OPD priorities, but has also equipped organizations of persons with disabilities with necessary tools to advance national implementation through concrete and substantive concluding observation from Africa to Latin America, OPD report, legal reforms in several areas, including legal capacity, mental health laws, and education.
As I close, allow me to reflect on the next decade of the CRPD.
Disability inclusion is a lit masters to the UN's integrity.
The progress we've made is fragile.
We must protect the gains of the CRPD.
This is not possible without a CRPD committee that is fully functional and adequately supported to carry out its mandate.
IDA calls for the CRPD committee to be fully supported in undertaking its mandate, including accessibility services, both during official meeting time and in the intersectional periods.
We must also be prepared for emerging opportunities and challenges, including technology and disability, climate action, and in an ever changing world, the power of international cooperation in realizing the vision of the convention.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much, miss Miriam Tang.
Now, the following pre recorded video messages were submitted to be projected at the opening of the session because of their relevance to the 20th anniversary, I will ask Secretariat to project them now.
We will now view a pre recorded video message from doctor Pfanhod, assistant Processor, Professor of Social History of Leiden University.
20 years ago, the United Nations adopted Milestone.
I will give you today a snapshot of the history of this unique convention.
My name is Pavel.
I'm an Assistant Professor of Social History at Lodden University.
Recently, I published a book about the history of the convention titled Progress from the Margins.
At the request of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, I will share a few highlights from the book.
First of all, the international discussion on the rights of persons with disabilities had a remarkable start at the conference in 1967 in Stockholm, Sweden.
Parents and allies of people with intellectual disabilities asked there during the conference of the International League of Societies for the mentally handicapped for the recognition of the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities to choose a place to live, to vote, to marry, and to have children.
Not all these rights were at that time recognized by the League nor by the United Nations, but the tone was set with this revolutionary request.
His early attention to human rights did, however, not mean that disabled people themselves had a place at international platforms.
Only after a long struggle, their place became more self evident.
They were, for instance, involved in a negotiation of the convention to an extent that is unique in the history of human rights law.
It took also a long time before the human rights of disabled persons became to be seen as a serious global issue.
That is, because policymakers and self advocates had often other priorities.
That is the second point that I want to highlight today.
Since the 1970s, disability was primarily seen as an issue of development.
For the improvement of disabled people's lives, social development policies were seen as key.
Within self advocacy organizations such as Disabled People International, development was seen as highly relevant.
The founding conference in 1981, took place in Singapore, which was seen as a country that connected the global south and north.
UN policies were for a long time determined by the World Program of Action, an outcome of the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981.
Disappointment about this program inspired itself advocates and their allies to embrace the idea of Human Rights Convention.
But the program itself was more focused on social development and instruments such as the New International Economic Order.
Interestingly, we can read the influence of this history back in the conventions text.
In comparison to other international law, the convention gives relatively much attention to structural inequalities and development.
It also gives member states clear guidance on how to improve disabled people's lives and how to involve them in the implementation.
Diplomats from various countries such as Mexico have played an important role in making the convention as it is, but that is my third and last point for today.
We must not underestimate the role of disabled self advocates.
They started to develop and push the human rights model of disability since the late 1990s, not only by intellectual labor, but also by collaborating beyond the borders of particular groups and countries.
This was not always easy, as we, for instance, can see in the fight of deaf self advocates for the recognition of sign language related rights.
Nevertheless, the efforts of disabled people did result in surprising outcomes such as Article 12 on equal recognition before the law.
In retrospect, one of the negotiators wrote that, and I quote, F saw at the time how the evolving text of Article 12 had the potential to zip open some deep contradictions in human rights talk about personhood, end quote.
Article 12 challenges us to rethink the human person and the role of support and to question human rights law that is only focused on protecting the individual against others.
This makes the convention really thought provoking.
All in all, the history of the convention shows a history of progress from the margins, not a simply straight line, but a zigzagging one.
Full of surprising turns and unexpected actors.
The history of the convention is not simply the history of a marginalized group that found recognition in international law, but the history of a diverse and changing coalition that produced innovative human rights law from which all humans could benefit.
I hope the work of the committee will contribute to this progress.
Thanks for your attention and keep up the good work.
Thank you so much.
We will now view a pre recorded video message from doctor Ola Aw Agafu, Director of the Secretary of the United Nations Global Disability Fund.
We will now view our pre recorded video messages.
Madam Chair, Distinguished members of the committee, Excellencies, colleagues and friends.
Thank you for the honor of addressing the opening of the committee's 35th session on behalf of the UN Global Disability Fund.
This session takes place at a defining moment, 20 years since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
20 years is more than an anniversary.
It's a generation.
A child born at that time is now entering adulthood.
That child grew up with a global promise that barriers would be dismantled, opportunities would be expanded, and his rights would be respected, protected, and fulfilled.
Some, that promise has become a reality.
But for millions of persons with disabilities around the world, it remains distant.
Rights are still too often recognized by law, but not experienced in daily life.
Persons with disabilities continue to face exclusion in education, health, social protection, and many other essential services and rights.
Progress remained fragmented, under resourced, and vulnerable to changing priorities.
The committee's work has been essential in making those gaps visible.
Its concluding observations do more than assess compliance.
They offer countries a roadmap for reform.
Our country level experience and our analysis of the committee's reviews point repeatedly to the same challenge.
The world does not lack commitments.
It lacked the systems, partnerships, financing needed to implement them at scale.
This is where international cooperation must become more ambitious.
Cooperation cannot remain a collection of isolated projects.
It must help countries build lasting institutions, policies, accountable services, and public financing that continue beyond a program cycle.
It must connect global standards with national reforms and local realities, and it must place organizations of persons with disabilities at the center of co design, decision making and accountability.
The experience of the UN Global Disability Fund shows that this is possible.
We began as an idea in 2012, has since supported a platform for collective action around the world by bringing relevant actors together, governments, OBDs, the United Nations systems, donors, and civil society.
UN GDF supports countries turn commitments into coordinated implementation.
Our work shows that targeted investment can unlock product change.
So governance, transforming care and support system, advancing inclusive social protection, and building the capacity needed to sustain a reform.
But we have learned that successful bots are not enough.
Projects may prove that what works, only a system can make it available for everybody and only sustainable financing can protect progress over time.
Financing disability inclusion is not optional, it's essential for implementation.
We need predictable, flexible, and long term resources.
We need disability inclusion embedded across national budgets and international development finance.
We also need together alignment among donors and partners so that resources reinforce national priorities and respond to committee's recommendations and support, reform that can reach at scale.
The 20th anniversary of the convention should not be an occasion for celebration alone.
It should be a moment for honest assessment and renewed commitment.
The next phase of implementation must be measured not only by ratification of fs and policies, it must look at the impact on people's lives.
Freedoms to make choices, equality of access, and enjoyment of daily dignity and freedom.
The generation born with the convention should not have to wait another 20 years for its promise to be fulfilled.
The UN Global Disability Fund stands ready to work with the committee, states, Organizations of P disabilities, and the United Nations system, donors and partners to turn recommendations into action, action into system change, and system change into rights made real.
As the committee starts this session, I wish for the discussion and I look forward to the progress that our collective effort can achieve.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you to all our opening speakers, especially I would like to express my sincere appreciation as representative of the committee, miss Abadapo, miss Peggy Hicks, and miss Mirianang joining us in person.
Thank you so much.
We will now proceed to Part two entitled the CLBD Committee's contribution to the implementation of the convention.
This part of the symposium will highlight some of the committee's principal general comments guidelines, and landmark decisions.
I kindly remind all speakers to remain within the allocated time.
We will begin with the pre recorded video messages from miss Teresa Deagu, former chairperson of the committee on general comment number one on equal recognition report.
Hello.
I'm Teresa Digna, Professor of Law and Disability Studies.
As a former committee member and chair, I'm honored to take part in this 20th anniversary of the CRPD.
My congratulations go to the committee's chairperson, Vj Kim, all committee members, and the Secretariat for their vital work monitoring the convention.
What is the key lesson from my time on the CRPD committee The United Nations can be a catalyst for change when we keep listening and learning from each other.
Human rights grow out of the collective experience of past and present violations.
The International Disability Rights Movement holds that expertise, but it lacks the diplomatic and legal authority to enshrine it in human rights policy.
That takes diplomats, human rights defenders, UN experts, and politicians willing to listen and sometimes to be pushed to listen.
Monitoring the CRBD taught activists about international human rights as never before.
Producing many of the experts I later met in the committee, and it taught diplomats and politicians to carry that knowledge into regional and national reform.
I have also learned that it is never too late to stand up for human rights.
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, disabled people were invisible citizens.
The CRPD came half a century late.
Yet, the last 20 years prove that it is never too late, a lesson that can carry us through the difficult times ahead.
What is the most important achievement of two decades of CRBD? Disability became a visible human rights issue with its own treaty and its own treaty body.
As a sister body, the CRBD Committee brought the Human Rights model of disability into the practice of the other treaty bodies.
National human rights institutions in the monitoring system help implement the convention at home and its strong participation standards turned the International Disability movement into a powerful human rights movement.
Universal acceptance came within two decades, remarkably fast by treaty standards.
Though not without reservations, only about two thirds of states have ratified the optional protocol, the conventions real teeth, and many entered reservations on the right to legal capacity, the heart of the human rights model.
20 years on, we see real progress, but nearly every disability related SDG indicator is off track and structural exclusion in education, employment, health, technology, and social protection persists, worsened by wars, climate disasters, and growing inequality.
The focus must now shift from standard setting to implementation.
Where new standards are still being written, disability must be adequately included.
In two conventions, particularly.
First, the Convention on the Rights of Older Persons needs disability rights experts to ensure that age and disability are both based on the human rights model, not the medical model.
Secondly, the draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention still omits disability despite mounting reports of disability related atrocities in and beyond war.
Neither the Nuremberg trials nor the 1998 Rome statute adequately recognized Nazi crimes against disabled people as crimes against humanity.
This is now the third chance in a century to end that invisibility of disabled people in international criminal law.
It must not be missed.
I wish you strength and resources for the challenges ahead.
In times like these, remember, human rights are the sharpest weapon we have for the collective libération of all disabled people.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you very much, miss Signer.
We will now view a pre recorded video message from miss Sylvia Khan, former Vice Chair, President of the committee on General Elect Committee number three on women and go with disabilities.
It is an honor for me to join in this 20th year anniversary of the adoption of the CRPD, a groundbreaking human rights treaty not only for the universal human rights system, but mainly for persons with disabilities worldwide.
There are representative organizations and their communities.
One of the most important contribution of the CRPD, it says Article 6, women with disabilities, as it recognizes us explicitly as right holders.
The CRPD committee has acknowledged the importance of this recognition and the text of this article and thus has adopted general comment number three.
Developing the human rights of standards and interpretation to support its implementation by states parties and advocacy by organizations of persons with disabilities and particularly by women with disabilities and their representative organizations, as well as other women's organizations.
General comment number three provides fundamental elements that describe how the intersection of women and disabilities is unique.
Given this unique nature, the lived experiences of women with disabilities and its vast diversity.
It also describes unique forms of violence against women with disabilities, as well as intersectional discrimination on the basis of disability and sex.
20 years after the adoption of the CRPD, an increasing number of states have made policy and legislation reforms to identify these types of violence and prohibit them explicitly.
Thus, we can identify some concrete impacts of this general comments.
Among these, the following.
Significantly higher number of laws and policies prohibiting forced sterilization in young women and girls with disabilities.
A rapidly growing number of organizations of women with disabilities, highlighting the creation of organizations of women self advocates worldwide.
As a fundamental impact, more women with disabilities in women's organizations, as well as an increasing number of organizations for the rights of women that are including the concerns of women with disabilities as part of their missions and strategies.
This progress, even if small, is encouraging.
Much needs to be accomplished still before we can say that the CRPD has been complied with for all persons with disabilities.
However, 20 years is a short period of time for many countries, for those in the global south where persons with disabilities were not even recognized as title holders and less so for women with disabilities.
International monitoring mechanisms can provide much needed guidance to move forward.
Thank you, CRPD Committee, for your amazing work and thank you so much to you, women experts.
Thank you so much, miss Quan.
Now, I invite Mr.
Ravan Jacob, porter of the committee to speak on the guideline on intersectional discrimination.
Miss Jacob, you have the floor.
Good afternoon and welcome to all who have joined us today.
My name is Laverne Jacobs.
I'm a member of the CRPD Committee and a law professor from Canada.
I also serve as the committee rapporteur.
During its 35th session in August 2026, the CRPD Committee adopted guidelines on identifying and addressing intersectional discrimination against girls, adolescents, women, and older women with disabilities.
This is a historic event.
The guidelines are by far one of the most significant achievements of the CRPD Committee.
I was a member of the committee's working group on women and girls with disabilities and the research lead for the development of the intersectionality guidelines.
I'm therefore extremely pleased and honored to be able to share with you some of the background on the development of this instrument.
Why have guidelines on intersectionality? Guidelines on intersectionality are needed for two main reasons.
First, although intersectionality has been defined in general comment number three on women and girls with disability in 2016, it has not been well understood by states parties and other duty bearers.
As a consequence, intersectionality has not been captured or addressed effectively on the ground as a form of disability discrimination.
There's also been confusion between the concept of multiple discrimination and the concept of intersectional discrimination.
The guidelines that we have produced address these issues by expanding upon and clarifying the definition of intersectional discrimination.
Importantly, the guidelines are a product of extensive consultation with civil society.
Indeed, the legitimacy and the strength of the guidelines lie in the fact that they stem from extensive consultation.
The guidelines were developed through a partnership process in response to the committee's call for submissions of 26 November 2025 and in June 2026.
We received a total of 174 submissions with civil society providing 73% of those submissions.
Our consultation brought together women, girls, and gender diverse persons with disabilities from a wide range of regions, identities, and contexts.
Our consultation included indigenous women, black women with disabilities, deaf and blind women, women with psychosocial and invisible disabilities, young women, neurodiverse women and girls and women living in rural remote nomadic and pastoralist communities.
This diversity fundamentally shaped the issues that the guidelines identify, address, and prioritize.
As a consequence, the guidelines have been informed by lived experiences and expertise and the structure of the guidelines is intentionally organized around that expertise and experience.
The second reason why these guidelines are important is because they will assist older and younger women and girls with disabilities, along with gender diverse individuals with disabilities to fight intersectional discrimination in their own jurisdictions.
The guidelines aim to recognize several of the barriers that are faced by women across the world.
It is by no means exhaustive and acknowledges that there are additional barriers that exist.
In general, however, such discriminatory barriers have at their base power imbalances and power relations, and we hope that the guidelines will assist and support women and girls and persons of diverse gender identities by moving intersectionality from a theoretical concept to an operational methodology.
The guidelines provide practical guidance to states parties, and other duty bearers, including national human rights institutions, independent monitoring mechanisms, regional organizations, service providers, businesses, and United Nations entities on how to implement the convention in order to address intersectional discrimination against women with disabilities of all ages.
In this light, the chapters deal with the differentiated impacts of intersectionality on women and girls with disabilities, as well as guidance for identifying and addressing intersectional discrimination respectively.
Finally, these guidelines come at a time when there are growing challenges to gender equality, disability rights, and the multilateral human rights system.
It's concerned with retrogressive laws, policies, and narratives, as well as increasing restrictions on organizations working to advance these very rights.
In adopting these guidelines, the CRPD Committee is thereby calling for action, urging states parties to protect and advance the rights of women, girls, and gender diverse persons with disabilities by resisting and reversing measures that undermine gender and disability equality.
So let me close by saying a bit more about the dedicated, energetic, and wonderful group of people who made the intersectionality guidelines a reality.
With immense thanks and warm collegiality, I identify the co chairs of the working group on women and Girls, Gertrude Oura Fiofmi and Mara Gabrli.
I want to especially thank Gertrude Getty, as she's known, for pushing this project off the ground.
I also want to identify and thank the CRPD Secretariat, especially Jimenez Suarez Enriquez and Jorge Aya for their tireless work.
Our technical partners, which included expert organizations from within the UN and civil society, and the many students and lawyers who assisted with the research.
Consultant, Professor Shreya Are at the University of Oxford and most importantly, I wish to recognize and thank the many women and girls and gender diverse persons with disabilities who shared their experiences of intersectional discrimination with us and who in so many ways shaped the final guidelines that we now have.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, miss To.
Now I inviting miss Cara Dunder, member of the committee to speak on Gener comment number four on inclusive education.
Miss Dunder, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
Very good afternoon, all guests, friends, and colleagues.
It's my honor to speak about general comment number four on Article 24 Education.
Is one of committees contribution for the implementation of CRPT.
General comment number four is particularly significant because it addresses one of most fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, that is right to education, more specifically right to inclusive education.
Recognizing the importance of inclusion is a key to realize the right to education has developed over several decades, building on important milestones, including continuation on the rights of child, education for all, standard rules on equalization for persons with disabilities and Solomon Declaration, framework with Action.
Continuation on the rights of persons with disabilities took this development and Significant step forward.
As emphasized in general comment number four, the convention marks a fundamental shift in the understanding of right to integration of persons with disabilities persons with disabilities.
Our convention became first legally binding international instrument to expressly recognize the concept of quality inclusive equation.
So now we can talk about why was general comment number four necessary? Because despite significant progress, serious and persistent barriers to inclusive education remain.
Millions of persons with disabilities face numerous challenges, including denial of right to education and many learners with disabilities are placed in the segregated learning environment.
Receive education that does not meet appropriate quality standards.
Therefore, committee recognized that the barriers are not simply located in the individual learners.
They are rooted in society, institutions, and education system.
They include discrimination and prejudice, lack of understanding of human rights approach to disability, insufficient knowledge and capacity, inadequate funding support, lack of disaggregated data, Big political comment and coordination and absence of effective remedies.
The committee also recognized that some learners are in a particular risk of exclusion, including persons with psychosocial and intellectual disability, persons with multiple disabilities, persons dep blind, persons with autism and persons with disabilities in humanitarian emergencies.
To overcome this These barriers, piecemeal measures are not adequate.
Comprehensive and systemic reform is needed.
With this reason, in 2016, committee adopted general comment number four in order to provide clear authorative guidance to the state parties to implement Article 24 on Education.
Also, general comment clarifies the normative contents of rights, identify barriers, and explain key concept of the inclusive equation.
Also, they provide guidance on third party measures and obligations that needed to be taking place.
One of its Particularly important contribution is interpretation on the distinction between exclusion, segregation, integration, and inclusion.
Because without a clear understanding about these different learning environmental settings, it was challenged by state party to fulfill that article.
So placing students with disabilities in the mainstream classroom without any support meets their individual needs and without any reform changing the organization, curriculum, and teaching and the learning strategy does not constitute inclusion.
Inclusion requires education system itself to transform so that it could respond The diversity of all learners.
Importantly, general comment identifies nine core features for inclusive education such as whole system approach, whole education environment, whole person approach, supported teaching, respect for value and diversity, learning friendly environment, and effective transitions, recognition of the partnership, and monitoring.
Together, this feature demonstrates that Inclusive education is not simply about placing learner with disabilities in mainstream classroom.
It is about participation, belonging, accessibility, support, achievement, and equality of opportunity.
General commit also provides detailed guidance on measures that state parties take, including legislative and policy reform, accessibility, reasonable accommodation, and support.
Resource allocation, data collection, and monitoring and accountability.
In this sense, this general comment number simply explain what is more about the Article 24.
It provides clear roadmap to state party how to implement the Article 24.
That is the contribution of general comment on number four, inclusivity equation.
Now our task is to ensure that this roadmap or general comment number four Not only in the better laws and policies, we really would like to see the real transformation in the education system to ensure that all persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to access quality and inclusive education as other non disabled peers.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you so much, miss Donorf.
Now, I invite miss Amalia Go, Vice President of the committee to speak on General Committee number five and the guideline on the institutionalization.
Miss Gamo, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The articles of the Convention are to be read together.
But Article 19 stands out since independent living is doubtless the clearest manifestation that a human being is in fact exercising their independence, their freedom, and their autonomy.
Limiting access to equality before the law and having to remain in an institution denies the most basic rights of any individual.
Persons with disabilities must always be able to take their own decisions.
Article 19 highlights the fact that persons with disability are both rights holders and subjects of rights, and that is why General Comment five, which was drawn up by the committee in 2017, clarifies the implementation of this fundamental right.
State parties have had difficulties implementing this, both in terms of equality before the law and independent living in the community because of the persistence of the protectionist approach.
During the pandemic, the committee reconsidered the terrible conditions which persons with disabilities were living in.
They were segregated in institutions, and the committee, because of that, drew up its guidelines on deinstitutionalzation, including in emergencies and consistent with Article 43 of General Comment seven, there were consultations with persons with disability in seven different regions of the world.
The global Coalition for deinstitutionalization also provided valuable help.
The guidelines complement General Comment five and the guidelines on Article 14.
These guidelines indicate that state parties have to put an end to all forms of institutionalization because they violate Articles 12, 14, 15 to 17, 19 and 25 of the Convention, acknowledging that institutionalization on the grounds of disability is a form of violence and discrimination because it submits people to deprivation of liberty and forced interventions.
The drafting, the approval and dissemination of guidelines on deinstitutionalization, including in emergency situations, are an extremely useful tool, enabling all states parties to the convention to establish a deinstitutionalization process which provides decent living, autonomy, independence, which all persons with disability deserve.
The day that the plenary of the committee the guidelines, each member said a few words.
Our dear colleague and friend Robert Martin, the only member with intellectual impairment the committee has had, and we very much miss him still said and I quote, I spent half my life in an institution under guardianship and being here as a member of the committee and the working group that actually drafted the guidelines and approved them, it's like living a dream.
And I'd like to dedicate this to my colleagues and friends with intellectual impairments worldwide, end quote.
The working group on deinstitutionalization has continued its work.
It sent respective declarations to the Council of Europe so that the draft additional protocol to the Oviedo Convention, which is contrary to the CRPD, so it's not approved.
It's also drawn up guidelines on disability based violence.
A consultations with persons with disability, hundreds of over 700 responses.
I think this shows that there's a huge need and this scourge be addressed.
Also, many persons, organizations in the world of academia, tp, based on the broad jurisprudence of the committee on this and we'd much like to thank the Secretariat and thank everyone who cooperated with this.
But above all, the brave persons with disabilities who were able to share their terrible experiences of violence.
These guidelines were approved in our opinion, 35th session and they will be very useful to stop violence and detect it first.
The working group on destitutionation will no doubt continue very attentive to ensure that the additional of Yo protocol is not approved, and it will continue to produce many more substantial and significant documents.
It has been a huge personal and professional honor to be a member of this committee over the last eight years.
The world is going through hard times and that is why the work of the committee is fundamental I certainly hope that those leaving and those arriving continues great work.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much, miss Camo Rios.
Now I invite Mr.
Ben Morris, co chair of the working group and member of the committee to speak on general comment number seven on Article 29 of the convention.
Mr.
Maurice, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, colleagues, friends.
I stand here today as a proud member of this Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
In 2002, I was there from the first day we started the negotiations on the CRPD as I led Jamaica's team.
I participated in all the sessions of the negotiation and caused Jamaica to be the first country in the world to both sign and ratify the treaty in March 2007.
Here I am 20 years later serving as a member of the committee.
I therefore have a particular vantage point in assessing where we are today that we have made some progress as demonstrated by the number of countries that have signed and ratified the CRPD and the number of state parties that have submitted reports.
Progress is also being made progress is also made in improving accessibility, inclusive education, living independently in the community, and recognizing the rights of women and girls with disabilities.
However, one of the areas that there has been circumspection is in participation in politics and public life.
Persons with disabilities, whilst enjoying the right to vote in many nations have not been able to venture into parliaments where they would have a seat and voice at the table where it matters.
Of the estimated 45,000 individuals In national parliaments, less than 500 or 1% are persons with disabilities.
The global population of persons with disabilities stands at over 1.3 billion or approximately 16%.
There is a disequilibrium with the number of persons with disabilities in parliaments and the global population of persons with disabilities and this lacuna must be corrected.
In the next frontier of disability advocacy, greater emphasis must be placed on the right of participation in political and public life for persons with disabilities.
This is why it was monumental for this committee to adopt the general comment on Article 29.
The monumentality of the general comment was made pelucid in the introductory paragraph where it states, The right to participate in political and public life is neither a discretionary benefit nor a matter of policy preference, but gives concrete expression to the status of persons with disabilities as autonomous rights holders whose legal capacity and dignity must be fully acknowledged, respected, and secured in the organization, functioning, and oversight of public institutions.
The general comment has thus elucidated some preeminent issues that states parties must take into consideration to guarantee this right for persons with disabilities.
In this new frontier of disability advocacy, persons with disabilities and their families must also join to form a powerful voting bloc to advocate for their rights and freedoms to be respected.
Politicians pay attention to numbers.
When the votes of persons with disabilities are conflated with their family members.
It mushrooms to approximately 50% of the global population.
No politician can ignore such a juggernaut.
Madam Chair, I end with that wonderful song from the iconic Bob Marley of Jamaica.
Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights.
Don't give up the fight.
I commend this song to my brothers and sisters with disabilities on the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Morris.
Now I invite miss Gutter Opa Popome member and former chairperson of the committee to speak on General committee number eight on the rights to work and employment.
Miss Popome, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
Excellency, colleagues, friends, partners, all protocol observed.
It is an honor to join this commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the convention.
As had been said before, 20 years ago, the CRPD changed the global understanding of disability for medical approaches to affirming person with disabilities as right holders.
And then the CRPD committee was established and among other things, to engage the dialogue with states and develop general comments.
These were to assist states and other stakeholders to enhance implementation.
In August 2019, following gaps identified by the committee Through its dialogue with the state parties as well as individual communications and inquiries under the optional protocol, the committee resolved to develop a general comment on Article 27 on work and employment in partnership with International Labor Organization.
This effort translate the convention into practical guidance for state parties, employers and other stakeholders to make the right to employment a live relative for persons with disabilities.
The process was participatory, engaging experts, state parties, human rights institutions, UN bodies, civil society, international parties, organizations for person with disabilities, including those of women with disabilities.
General Comment number eight, ladies and gentlemen, was adopted in August 22, 2022.
It gives us authoritative guidance on how Article 27 requires its message is clear, disability inclusion and employment is not a favor, a welfare merger, or a program.
It is a human rights obligation, and therefore, states must remove barriers, prohibit discrimination, ensure reasonable accommodation, and transform labor market so that persons with disabilities can participate equally.
States are required to combat multiple and certain forms of discrimination, For women with disabilities and young persons with disabilities, including by ensuring access to just and favorable conditions of work, equal opportunities.
Equal information for work for equal value, as well as promotion.
It also challenges the practices that continue to exclude persons with disabilities from ordinary work life.
It pushes back against seggregated employment sets and keep apart persons with disabilities from open market.
Those sets also have an equal payment and lack employment contracts and fail to create pathways to the work.
Ladies and gentlemen, the standard should not be whether a person with a disability has incurred something doing.
The standard is whether they enjoy equal opportunities and treatment, choice, dignity, fair ration, social protection, and opportunities for personal development.
This matters because work is connected to many other rights.
They support independent living, family life, participation in the community, access to social protection, and personal development.
But when workplaces and treatment systems are inaccessible, stereotypes define who is considered productive and reasonable accommodation remains an option.
Persons with disabilities are pushed into poverty or dependency.
This is why general comment number eight is an important contribution by the CRPD committee.
In line of this, ladies and gentlemen, the next 20 years must deliver measurable change.
I suggest the following among other priorities.
First, align national labor laws, disability laws, and social protection systems to Article 27 and general comment number eight.
Second, make reasonable accommodation practical, timely, and for recruitment, retention, promotion, and return to work.
Third, invest in inclusive education, skill development, digital education to work transitions, and fourthly, collect disability disaggregated employment data, including data on women with disabilities.
F, ensure that persons with disabilities and their representative organization lead the design, implementation, and monitoring of policies and programs.
Madam Chair, Public institutions, the private sector, trade unions, development partners, and civil society must work together to ensure the implementation of Article 27 guided by General Comment eight.
This anniversary should be more than a celebration.
It should be a commitment to ensure that we move progression to realization.
As I end, I pay tribute to the working group that I was chairing that developed and finalized with the committee of which chair was then miss Rosemary Kaz for her contribution.
I thank the Secretariat led by Joge Awara and Jana Esopova and will not leave out Lofla who was then the chair who started briefly before the IOL team was led by Mr.
Stephan Tremo.
Thank you so much for your attention.
Thank you so much, miss Pome.
Now I invite miss Loose Cases, member and former chairperson of the committee to speak on the committee's general comment number nine and number ten on Article 11, suits of L and humanitarian emergencies of the convention.
Miss Cases, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Chair and good afternoon, everybody.
I'm also chair of the CRPD Committee's working group on general comments for Article 11, and I would like to start with a brief comment about the backdrop to the drafting and the intent behind Article 11.
During the negotiations of the convention, several significant disasters and humanitarian emergencies occurred, including the earthquake in the Indian Ocean, and the resulting tsunami.
Tropical cyclones such as Katrina, and the second If Intifada reinforce the need to address the exclusion of people with disabilities from mitigation plans, preparedness planning, emergency response, and reconstruction efforts, and reparation mechanisms.
This served to reinforce the importance of the inclusion of Article 11 in the Convention as an implementation article 0F the Right to Life.
I would particularly like to acknowledge the late Mon Tian Bonan who was a fierce advocate for the inclusion of Article 11 during the convention negotiations, and then as a member of the committee on the rights of persons with disabilities for the elaboration of the obligations on states parties in a general comment on Article 11.
From the outset, the committee understood that, drafting a general comment on Article 11 was an important and legally complex project to undertake.
Article 11, situations of risk and Humanitarian Emergencies provides an explicit obligation to accord protection to persons with disabilities consistent with international law, obligations through a transversal reading of human rights protections in situations of risk across the domain of international law.
There are multiple instruments which deal with situations of risk, humanitarian emergencies and disasters, including international humanitarian law, international criminal law, International disaster law, international health law, International refugee law, and International Environment and Climate change Law, among others.
These instruments have been negotiated and developed as part of the United Nations Framework, including the UN Charter and the General Assembly.
The challenge before the committee was to deal with this complexity with a specified UN word limit, which inevitably led to a decision to draft two general comments on Article 11.
General comment number nine aims to clarify the standards and obligations of states parties under Article 11.
And its application to international law in the protection of persons with disabilities in situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies.
General Comment number ten identifies measures needed to implement the standards and obligations of Article 11.
What these general comments seek to do is look at the mechanisms within other areas of international law, to address the fragmentation of international law, and to apply the standards and principles of the CRPT The CRPD is the Specialist Human Rights instrument in the context of disability.
When action is taken by states party, the CRPD provides guidance to the implementation of other areas of international law and programmatic frameworks.
These two general comments on Article 11 are standalone documents in their own right, but the two complement each other and should inform each other and be read together.
With the adoption of these two general comments, we have come a long way from the crowded and inaccessible conference room floor at UN headquarters in New York, where the convention was developed 2002-2006 and finally adopted in December 2006.
It is a fitting finish to 25 years and 20 years of international law.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, miss Los Marquess.
Now, our final speaker in part two, the CLPD committee's contribution to the implementation of the convention is Mr.
Marcus Shepard, member and former chair of the Walking group of communication of the committee, who will speak on the committee's landmark decision on individual communications.
Mr.
Markus, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair and good afternoon, everybody.
Compared to other treaty bodies, individual communications play a relatively minor role in the work of the CRPD Committee.
The number of cases is quite small.
Nevertheless, in the 18 years of its existence, the committee has framed fundamental parts of the Convention in communications.
Today, we take for granted that we understand central concepts of the convention.
And this often is in no small part due to our work and communications.
For example, they frame the basic concepts, such as equal recognition before the law of reasonable accommodations at a time well before the respective general comments came out.
They spell out how the concept of discrimination by association is framed under the Convention or how and to what extent the convention applies between private parties.
They delineate under which conditions and to what extent legal obligations of the convention apply in territories not under full control of a state party.
They specify what the principle of no refulement means for persons with disabilities.
They lay the groundwork on justiciability of rights subject to progressive realization.
In these and other areas, communications frame the basics of the ensuing jurisprudence of the committee in concluding observations, general comments, guidelines, and other forms.
Just think of the seminal general comment on Article 12 that Teresa Degner referred to.
In its core, communications prepared it.
However, the contributions of communications do not stop here.
Communications also serve a tool to exert justice to individual people.
We heard the claims of persons with disabilities lingering in incommunicado detention in Saudi Arabian prisons, of Spanish police officers involuntarily retired because of accidents at work.
Of persons with intellectual disabilities in Sweden and Mexico shut out of criminal trials against them and left as bystanders, of a boy with Down syndrome thrown out of inclusive school in fourth grade, of persons with disabilities to be deported to places where they face death, torture, and inhuman treatment.
Of Albino women in Tanzania horrendously violated by their neighbors in the dark of night and many others.
Then we look at who brought these cases.
It is primarily individual persons with disabilities.
But they often face obstacles effectively preventing them from lodging communications.
Very often, therefore, it is civil society organizations that support them or even claim their rights on their behalf.
Here we see that some countries have civil society organizations with particular expertise like Australia.
In other countries like Sweden, a few immigration law lawyers figured out that our committee is a competent forum.
I could list many other examples.
Overall, communications work somewhat in the shadow of concluding observations and general comments, but they work very effectively.
With an enormous impact on the law and on individuals, and they provide arguments that help the public understand why the committee reaches its results.
Results that are often far ahead of those of our fellow human rights bodies.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Mark Shepard.
I would like to thank all the speakers in part two for highlighting the committee's contribution to the interpretation and implementation of the convention over the past two decades.
Now, we will take a short break of 5 minutes.
Please return promptly as the meeting will resume at 40 35.
Thank you so much.
Distinguished participants, may I kindly ask you to take your seats.
The We 866 meeting is resumed.
We will now begin part three titled Crossroads Interaction of the Committee with other mechanism.
I would like to invite first, Mr.
Jonas Lsquez, former member and vice chair of the committee to take the floor.
Dear members of the CRPD committee, dear friends and colleagues, dear CRPD partners and stakeholders, it's a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to you today.
This time in my capacity as a former expert member and the vice chair of the committee.
20 years since the adoption of the convention mark a pragmatic and global shift in the recognition of persons with disabilities, regardless of the impairment, age, sex, gender, or the type, and intensity of support they may require.
The adoption of the CRPD explicitly recognized persons with disabilities as full subjects of the international human rights system.
By ratifying the Convention, states committed themselves to dismantling structural and systemic patterns of ableism and disability based discrimination and to taking all necessary measures to ensure the full respect, protection, and fulfillment of the rights of persons with disabilities and to safeguard the identity, freedom and autonomy, empowerment, and inclusion in society.
Over the past 20 years, considerable efforts have been made by state parties to implement the Convention.
However, much remained to be done to translate its principles and obligations into lived realities.
May this celebration not obscure the alarming situation of children with disabilities globally.
Children with disabilities, particularly those requiring more intensive support, including children with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, autistic children and other continue to face systematic and structural denial of the rights across the world.
Depriving them of equality with other children.
This is manifested through the failure to ensure their right to family life, resulting in their institutionalization.
It must be clearly stressed, small size residential care, it is not a family and should be not presented as an alternative to family life.
Regardless of its size, residential care remain a form of institutionalization.
Segregated special education similarly deprives children with disabilities of equal opportunities for development and growth.
Most alarmingly, these forms of discrimination are still normalized and perpetuated rather than recognized and addressed a serious violation of the rights of children with disabilities.
It is precisely for this reason that children with disabilities require particular respect, protection, and recognition.
Structural and systemic discrimination continues to channel them into segregated pathways that separate them and deny them equal opportunities to grow, to develop, participate, and exercise their rights on equal basis with other children.
In this regard, it is important to recall the joint position of the CRPD Committee and the committee on the rights of Child, which in 2022, called upon state parties to embrace without compromise the human rights model of disability and to ensure the full implementation of key provisions concerning the rights of children with disabilities.
As a former member of the CRPD committee who led the development of this joint made statement at the time, may I highlight two of its key elements, the right to inclusive education and the right to family life.
These two rights constitute fundamental pillars for the practical realization of the rights of children with disabilities.
Growing up in a family, learning together with their peers provide the foundations for belonging, participation, and inclusion in the community.
Together, they create the basis for an inclusive life course, enabling children with disabilities to grow, to develop, and participate in society on equal basis with other children, while laying the foundations for an inclusive, autonomous, and self determined adult life.
I would also encourage the CRPD committee to consistently reaffirm and bring this important joint CRPD and CRC statement to the attention of the state parties and to urge them to use it together with the convention as a key framework for the full realization of the rights of children with disabilities.
The future of a child is shaped by the live today.
It is our responsibility and the obligations of the state parties to ensure that every child with disability lives in a fully inclusive life today and carries that inclusion into adulthood.
There can be no inclusive adulthood without an inclusive childhood.
Let's us make inclusion a reality for every child with disability from the very beginning of their life.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Lsquez.
Now I invite Mr.
Juan Carlos Luan, Director of the implementation Support Unit of the Anti Personal Mind Ban Convention.
Mr.
Ron, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Distinguished members of the committee, Excellency's, dear colleagues and friends.
What an honor it is to join you today in celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability in my capacity as Director of the Implementation Support Unit of the Anti Personnel Mime Ban Convention, and I sincerely thank the committee for this invitation.
So after more than 25 years of working with the Anti Personal Mine Ban Convention and supporting states parties and fulfilling their commitments to victims, I can honestly say without hesitation that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability has been one of the most transformative forces in humanitarian disarmament.
When the 1997 Mine Ban Convention was adopted, it broke new ground by committing its states parties to provide assistance to victims.
It was the first disarmament convention to include dedicated provisions for victims of the weapon it prohibited.
What may seem like a natural feature of humanitarian disarmament instruments today was far from standard practice in 1990s when the convention was negotiated.
But it was the CRPD that gave those commitments their full meaning.
The CRPD today, I told the world clearly, powerfully and irrevocably that persons with disabilities, including mind and explosive ordinance survivors are right holders and not recipients of charity.
Their inclusion is not optional, their participation is not symbolic and their autonomy is not negotiable.
For Mine Effect, it states, this was transformative.
It fundamentally reshaped the DNA of victim assistance and the way support to survivors was understood and delivered.
It shifted us from projects to processes, from temporary support to lifelong inclusion, from fragmented services to national responsibility.
Today, because of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, we see victim assistance embedded in national health systems, rehabilitation and assistive technology services, social protection frameworks, inclusive education policies, employment strategies, and national disability laws.
This integration stands among the most significant contributions of the CRPD's influence on the Mine Ban Convention.
It has made assistance sustainable, equitable, and aligned with national priorities.
It has ensured continuity even when mine action funding fluctuates and it has anchored victim assistance in broader humanitarian human rights architecture of states.
Perhaps the most powerful change has been the expectation now widely embraced, that survivors must be involved in the decisions affecting their lives.
The CRPD significantly strengthened participation and inclusion as a central principle for global and national policies and programs.
Today, survivors, together with persons with disabilities sit in national coordination mechanisms, shape policies, monitor implementation, and lead community initiatives.
Organization of Persons with Disabilities and survivor networks have become indispensable partners.
Their leadership has improved the relevance, quality, and reach of services.
It has grounded assistance and lived experience and ensured the programs reflect real needs and not assumptions.
CRPD has placed victim assistance within a wider development and human rights landscape, such as in sustainable development goals and national development plans.
This alignment has opened doors to new partnerships, new funding opportunities, and new ways of integrating mine action priorities into national systems.
It has also reinforced a simple truth that victim assistance is not a standalone activity.
It is part of a national effort to ensure that all persons with disabilities, whether injured by mines, explosive remnants of war or other causes all can live full, independent, dignified lives on equal basis with others.
Across mine affected states, we see encouraging progress and I would love to say that we face normal obstacles, but we all know that challenges persist.
But they are far from insurmountable.
Including amongst the challenges reported by states are fragmented data, limited coordination, resource constraints, and barriers in rural and remote areas.
These are precisely the areas where the CRPD's committee's guidance, its general comments, dialogues, and recommendations have been invaluable.
The CRPD has helped states see more clearly, act more coherently, and deliver more effectively.
Article 11 of the CRPD, Protection and safety in situations of risk, and thank you, misses Kays, for raising this has become essential for victim assistance.
Most mine and explosive ordinance survivors live in rural, remote, and often insecure areas.
Ensuring their safety during emergencies, disasters, or conflicts is not only a humanitarian obligation, it is a human rights obligation.
Unfortunately, with the number of conflicts, including protracted conflicts and natural disasters we are witnessing today, this is more important than ever.
In that regard, the forthcoming general comment in Article 11 will strengthen this work even further, guiding states in building inclusive preparedness, response and recovery systems.
Madam Chair, as we commemorate this anniversary, we should also reaffirm our shared promise to build a world where mine and explosive ordinance survivors and all persons with disabilities can live, participate, and thrive on an equal basis with others.
This may be cliche, but we do it for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and future generations because after all, what exactly are we doing if not leaving a better place behind for the next generation? Our partnership over the past 20 years has brought us closer, I believe, to that vision, and it will continue to guide our collective efforts in the years ahead.
On behalf of the implementation Support Unit of the Anti Psonnel Min Ban Convention, I extend my deepest appreciation to this committee for its leadership, partnership, and unwavering commitment.
The ICU also expresses gratitude to the Secretariat of the committee for its invaluable role and collaboration, and we look forward to continuing this work for the next 20 years and beyond.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Luan.
Now, I invite miss Monica Haley Rblode, head of the Accessible Books Consortium at the Wordy Intellectual Property Organizations WIPO.
Miss Rab Blade, you have the floor.
Thank you very much.
Dear Madam Chair, distinguished committee members, guests, and colleagues.
It is an honor to stand before you today as we mark the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Congratulations to the committee and to the Secretariat for its progress and accomplishments.
I'm here to speak of the intersection between the Convention and the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled.
When the convention was adopted in 2006, it represented something extraordinary.
It was not merely another international treaty.
It was, as many of you noted, a declaration to the world that persons with disabilities are full and equal holders of human rights.
Decades on, that shift continues to reshape our laws, our institutions, and our collective conscience.
The convention rests on principles that are as vital today as they were 20 years ago, autonomy, non discrimination, and full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.
The convention is also a key reference for the Marrakesh Treaty.
The first sentence of the Marrakesh Treaty states, and I quote, Recalling the principles of non discrimination, equal opportunity, accessibility, and full and effective participation and inclusion in society proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The drafters of the Marrakesh Treaty did not simply acknowledge the convention.
Marrakesh is anchored in the convention's key principles.
The convention elaborates about accessibility at Article 9, access to information at Article 21, and at Article 24.
These key principles set the foundations of the Marrakesh Treaty.
Centuries, the world's publications were not available to people who are blind or visually impaired.
It was only 200 years ago that a young French teenager named Louis Braille created the system of writing based on six rays dots that bears his name.
It is currently estimated that fewer than 10% of all published works are made available in accessible formats and the World Blind Union coined the term the global book famine to reflect the sparsity of accessible books in braille, audio, or digital text around the world.
But excellent progress is being made.
The convention has 193 contracting parties.
The Marrakesh Treaty covers 131 countries.
This year, we are celebrating not only the 20th anniversary of the Convention, but also the tenth anniversary of the Marrakesh Treaty coming into force.
I would like to congratulate the CRPD in particular on its recommendations on country reports made through its concluding observations and in particular, acknowledge its recommendations in relation to Convention Article 24 on education.
The committee has treated the provisions under Article 24 as a braille literacy obligation, not merely an obligation to hand over braille format materials.
The committee has emphasized the teaching, learning, and use of brail, and it has also highlighted that brail should not be confined to segregated settings.
The committee's concluding observations have also referenced the chronic shortage of inclusive education teachers and specialist support staff trained in braille and recognize that providing Braille books or braille technology is simply not enough if the educational system has no one capable of teaching students and supporting braille literacy.
The Marrakesh Treaty creates exceptions to copyright law so that accessible format books, braille, audio, digital text can be produced by authorized entities and shared across borders without the need to request permission from the copyright owner.
Such exceptions are created for the benefit of people who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled.
A textbook made accessible in one country can therefore now reach a student who is print disabled in another without duplicating cost or effort.
The Accessible Books Consortium or ABC, managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization, shows us that rights were never meant to remain abstractions.
They were meant to be realized at a practicable level through an amended law or a barrier removed.
ABC achieves practical results through the ABC Global Book Service.
This service provides ABC organizations serving people who are print disabled with the ability to search and exchange accessible format copies of works across borders at no cost.
Currently, 154 authorized entities are members of the ABC Global Book Service with more than 50% located in low income countries.
The ABC catalog has grown significantly and currently contains 1.2 million titles in 80 languages that are available for cross border exchange, and I note that the catalog contains over 120,000 Braille titles, including 17,000 Braille music scores.
As we celebrate 20 years of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the tenth anniversary of the Marrakesh Treaty, let us celebrate what both treaties set in motion and let us continue to advocate on behalf of persons with disabilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak during this important celebration.
Thank you so much.
Mr.
Rabblade and thanks to all the speaker in Party three.
Now we will proceed the Party four entitled Partnership.
Firstly, we will give you a pre recorded video message from the invited, miss Dina Minkis, presenter of the Center for the Human Rights, User and Survivor of Psychology.
Miss Minkz, you have the floor.
In this 20th anniversary year, we reflect on our substantial accomplishments toward the abolition of psychiatric violence and the challenges not yet overcome.
Survivors of psychiatry have unified around the CRPD as a binding international normative instrument that recognizes our entitlement to full and equal human rights without exception.
The work of this committee has been crucial in establishing conclusively that the convention prohibits psychiatric detention and forced interventions while creating a framework for social model supports and entitlement to full economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights without any discrimination.
The committee's work began with general comment number one, a top priority for states and civil society to resolve debates about whether CRPD required the elimination of all forms of substitute decision making, or whether substitution could remain as a fallback while introducing support arrangements.
After substantial consultations, the committee chose a path consistent with the purpose of the convention to ensure full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by all persons with disabilities.
Dishment of the right to exercise legal capacity for any subset of persons with disabilities in any area of life would have impaired the value of the convention and its contribution to the international legal framework.
The general comment called for the abolition of forced mental health treatment regimes as a form of substitute decision making and a violation of the right to legal capacity, as well as being a traumatizing practice engaging Articles 15, 16 and 17.
The general comment also called for the availability of non medical options along with independent support in making mental health treatment decisions.
The committee's work continued with guidelines on the right to liberty and security of the person based on the committee's concluding observations and its analysis of the negotiating history.
Contrary to persistent attempts by some states, human rights mechanisms, and regional bodies to interpret Article 14 narrowly and permit disability based detention if other criteria such as risk to oneself or others were present, the committee concluded that such an approach was rejected during the negotiations.
Committee found that all deprivations of liberty based on an actual or perceived impairment, including involuntary hospitalization in mental health settings constitute discriminatory and arbitrary detention.
Hospitalization without the free and informed consent of the person concerned also violates the right to exercise legal capacity regarding kits to a hospital.
The guidelines also call for the elimination of declarations of incapacity to participate in criminal proceedings or to be held responsible, and the elimination of the detentions and other security measures linked to such declarations.
The guidelines on deinstitutionalization add to this normative framework specific obligations for implementing the cessation of violations and guarantees of non repetition pertaining to psychiatric detention and forced interventions.
These guidelines reinforce standards articulated in general comments number one and five and in the guidelines on liberty and security of the person.
States are obligated to immediately revoke disability based detentions to halt new admissions and repeal laws authorizing them and to allow all persons in mental health facilities to leave at any time and be provided with emergency and longer term assistance to resettle in the community.
Instead of treating individual crisis as a justification for forced interventions or medical treatment, the guidelines call for support options to be made available to meet needs such as crisis support, decision making support, and support to heal from trauma outside the health system and not requiring a mental health diagnosis.
The work of the Special Rapporteur on torture has complemented that of the committee, applying the CRPD in conjunction with the anti torture framework to provide depth to an analysis of forced psychiatric interventions as a form of coercive violence based on discrimination.
The committee's current work to draft guidelines on disability based violence may assist in developing these norms.
For the greatest possible impact on implementation, including legislative reform and litigation, the committee may wish to consider elaborating a general comment on Articles 14 and 15, drawing on its materials to date and the expertise of DPOs.
It will be essential in such work to maintain and strengthen the absolute prohibition of impairment based attention.
If any mental health interventions without an affirmative expression of free and informed consent by the person concerned.
In closing, we thank the committee Fuss towards the realization of full human rights and reparations for survivors of psychiatry and look forward to the road ahead.
Thank you so much, miss Mncois.
I am pleased to invite Her Excellency, miss an Yun, ambassador and permanent representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Your Excellency, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee.
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
This is my great pleasure to join you in commemorating the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
20 years ago, the international community made a fundamental choice to see persons with disabilities not as objects of charity or protection, but as rights holders equal in dignity and entitled to participate fully in society.
Korea is proud to have been part of that journey.
And we are particularly proud of the contribution that we made for Article 6 of the convention.
During the negotiations in 2004, Korea formally proposed a separate provision to recognize the rights of women and girls with disabilities, which contributed to the development of Article 6.
That history reminds us that persons with disabilities are not a homogeneous group and that their diverse experiences and needs must be reflected in our policies and actions.
Madam Chair, Korea has sought to stand with this committee.
Korean independent experts have served on it continuously since 2011, and miss Min Kim now serves as chair.
Korea has also supported the committee's substantive work through financial contributions amid serious constraints across the treaty body system.
We do so because we believe that rights written in a treaty become meaningful only when strong and independent institutions help turn them into practice.
Korea has also worked to promote disability inclusion more broadly.
At the United Nations headquarters in New York, Korea has worked to advance accessibility and the participation of persons with disabilities, including through its leadership in the conference of state parties to the CRPD, and initiatives promoting a more inclusive and accessible United Nations Distinguished colleagues, since ratifying the convention, Korea has continued to strengthen its legal institutional framework from joining the optional protocol to recognizing Korean sign language as an official language and giving Byer the same legal status as Hangar, the Korean alphabet.
Political participation has also expanded, including the growing presence of women with disabilities in the National Assembly.
Inclusion is not achieved only through laws.
It is achieved when persons with disabilities are at the table where decisions are made and can shape them.
Our work is not yet complete.
The committee's concluding observations remain an important guide for further reform and for strengthening the implementation of our commitments.
Madam Chair, Korea also believes that disability rights cannot stop at national borders.
Through international development cooperation, we have supported disability inclusive education and assistive technology.
We have also helped to expand opportunities for children and young persons with disabilities.
This is why Article 32 matters to us.
International cooperation has turned the values of the CRPD into lived reality beyond our own borders, especially for persons facing poverty, conflict, displacement, and humanitarian emergencies.
This commitment must also shape the future.
As artificial intelligence and digital transformation reshape our societies, persons with disabilities must participate fully and equally in shaping that future.
Technology can expand opportunities, but it can also create new barriers if persons with disabilities are excluded from its design.
Accessibility, universal design, and meaningful participation must therefore be built in from the outset.
Distinguished members, the CRPD has changed the way the world understands disability.
The ratification was never the final destination.
The next decade must be about turning the rights in the convention into reality in schools, works, workplaces, public life, communities, and digital spaces.
Ten years ago, the CRPD gave the world a new language of dignity, equality, autonomy, and participation.
Our task now is to make that language part of everyday life.
The Republic of Korea remains committed to working this path together with the committee, state parties, and above all, persons with disabilities.
We will continue this journey with you in the years ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ambassador Yun.
Now I invite Mr.
Juan Ignacio Pérez, Senior ab at the International Disability Alliance.
Mr.
Pérez, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, committee members, excellency, member state representatives, colleagues and friends.
It's an honor to be part of this celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
It's a great opportunity to look back and reflect on how the CAPD and this committee have drastically changed the landscape and the conversation on the rights of persons with disabilities as highlighted by many esteemed panelists.
But this could not have been possible without a strong partnership.
The key partnership and collaboration between the committee and the International Disability Alliance to promote and ensure participation by national Organizations of persons with disabilities in the work of the committee to advance relevant thematic discussions and processes and to promote and disseminate the work of the committee seeking for mainstreaming of CAPD has been a key element for the impact of the work of the committee at the national, regional and international level.
We are glad to say that representatives of national organizations of persons with disabilities that IDA supported to attend the sessions of the committee, whether financially, logistically and technically or all of the above, have benefited from the openness of these unique committee members throughout the 35 sessions to raise their concerns and their issues.
For many colleagues, the participation at the CAPD committee review of their country has been a turning point in their advocacy path coming out much more empowered, much more connected, and with an enhanced feeling of belonging and collective efforts to advance the rights of persons with disabilities worldwide.
All elements that have become more relevant given the times that we are undergoing.
Indeed, the human rights movement is facing with a strong backlash, restricting civil society space in many contexts, challenging financial constraints at the United Nations at large and human rights mechanisms in particular, and reduced funding for civil society organizations.
Ida's call, as early indicated in our opening remarks, is, let's redouble efforts and raise the voice to call state parties to enhance resource mobilization for CRPD implementation, advocacy, and monitoring for the years to come.
In this sense, ADA looks forward to the very important process to come towards a general comment on Article 32 international cooperation as a key element for the smooth continuation of this partnership.
The Amman Berlin Declaration adopted at the 2025 Global Disability Summit created the momentum necessary for the process to be thorough and participatory, including state parties, international organizations, organizations of persons with disabilities, and other relevant stakeholders, and for the future guidance to be sound and impactful by the CAPD committee to state parties.
International Disability Alliance once more confirms and renews its commitment to support the work of the CFPD Committee, the participation of Organizations of persons with disabilities, and the expansion of CFPD based advocacy in connection to several recently emerging challenges such as climate action and the impacts of artificial intelligence.
Inclosing this last public intervention from our side today, the International Disability Alliance would like to express our sincere appreciation for the great commitment and work throughout the past years, in particular of the outgoing members of the COPD committee, miss Rekha Borsle, miss Amalia Gamio Rios, miss Laverne Yakovs, miss Roseme Case, miss Mi Joon Kim, chair of the committee, Mr.
Alfred Quasi, miss Gertrude Oya Fume, and Mr.
Mark Chef.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for your contributions to the work of the committee.
I'd also thanks the work of the Secretariat Conference Services and interpreters for making this session on this great event possible today.
I thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Pérez.
Now we will view a pre recorded video message from Mr.
Marco Torscao Lpalta, Chief of the Regional Office for Asia and the first speak of the United Nations Office for Digesal L Reduction.
Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee, excellences and colleagues.
It is a great pleasure to join you in celebrating 20 years of the work of the Committee on the Right of Persons with Disabilities.
At the outset, I would like to recognize the committees for its pioneering leadership in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities and particularly for the way it has integrated the principles and priorities of the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction in its reporting guidance and engagement with state parties.
And also for the way it has integrated the disaster risk reduction in its concluding observations to state parties.
The Sendai Framework has served as a benchmark in the committee's interpretations on Article 11.
This is significant.
It demonstrates the power of bringing together legally binding human rights obligations with global policy frameworks such as the Sendai Framework to strengthen implementation and accountability.
It is a great example of synergy that can be engineered between hard law and soft law.
The convention sets the world and the Sendai like instruments provide guidance on how the obligations can be discharged.
The committee's work has also reflected the breadth of what disability inclusive disaster risk reduction requires.
The meaningful participation of persons with disabilities, stronger connections between climate actions and disaster risk reduction, inclusive multi hazard early warning systems, investment in prevention and resilience, and attentions to the entire spectrum that goes from preventions to building back better.
This just to mention a few.
Through this work, the committee has helped shaping stronger and more inclusive disaster risk reductions.
Yet the global picture remains deeply concerning.
When the international community adopted the same day framework in 2015, countries committed to reducing disaster risk and losses, but disaster risk reductions and losses continues to rise.
At the same time, we still lack an adequate understanding on how disasters affect persons with disability because the data is too often not disaggregated by disability.
And this has a negative impact in the determination of the appropriate policies and measures to take.
The 2023 Global Survey report on persons with disabilities and disasters undertaken in the context of the midterm review of the Sendai Framework indicates that progress towards inclusive disaster risk reductions remains concerningly very limited.
Significant gaps persist.
These include the disability inclusive disaster risk assessment and early warning systems.
The full participation in the design and implementation of national and local disaster risk reduction policies and plans, inclusive accounting of losses and damages, including losses related to assistive technologies.
And the meaningful participation in decision making at every level.
Personal preparedness plans are not there and there is a limited awareness of national and local disaster risk reduction plans and how truly inclusive they are or not.
Also, investment lag.
These gaps must be addressed as a matter of priority.
That is why Article 11 of the convention is so fundamental.
While reducing disaster risk has not necessarily been established yet as a standalone clear legal obligations across countries, Article 11 provides a vital pillar in international law for protecting persons with disabilities in situations of risk.
The committee's work toward a general comments on Article 11, therefore, represents a critical and unique opportunity to reinforce prevention and disaster risk reductions as essential approaches for promoting, protecting, and realizing the rights enshrined in the convention in addition to the emergency phases.
Prevention is the best protection.
We must not wait for a crisis to unfold.
We still have significant ground to cover to close the gap between duties, commitments, and progress in people's everyday lives.
The committee's work remains pivotal in monitoring implementation, giving guidance, strengthening accountability, and ensuring that the voices, rights, and leadership of persons with disabilities and their organizations are at the center of efforts to reduce disaster risk.
In closing, I would like to express UNDR deep appreciation to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the close and valued partnerships.
UNDR looks forward to continuing supporting the committee and with OCHR working together towards a more resilient, inclusive and equitable future for all.
I thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Toscano Libera.
Lastly, we have a pre recorded video message from miss Bera Bumbalou, President of Portugal's national mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the convention on the rights of residents with disabilities.
Treaty years ago, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities changed the way the world looks at disability and human rights.
The convention made one thing very clear.
Persons with disabilities are rights holders.
They have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as everyone else.
The convention also says that governments must remove the barriers that stop persons with disabilities from taking part fully in society.
But the convention goes even further.
Signing and ratifying the convention is only the first step.
Rights must become reality.
They must be put into practice.
They must be monitored and progress must be reviewed over time.
That is why Article 33 introduced something new to the International Human Rights system.
Every state party must create or appoint an independent monitoring framework.
Its role is to promote, protect, and monitor the implementation of the convention in line with the Paris principles.
To this independent monitoring frameworks are essential to making the convention work.
They promote the rights recognized in the convention.
They protect those rights.
They monitor how the convention is being implemented, they collect evidence, analyze progress, and make recommendations.
They help improve laws, public policies, and public services, and they make one of the convention's most important principles a reality, active participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in monitoring their own rights.
In Portugal, this role belongs to the National mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of persons with disabilities, the MiCDPD.
As Portugal's independent monitoring framework under Article 33 of the Convention, the MECDPD promotes, protects, monitors the implementation of the convention across the country.
Since it was created, the MECDPD has helped reinforce the human rights approach to disability.
Its goal is to bring the convention closer to the legislation, public policies, and everyday lives of persons with disability.
Its work includes opinions on draft laws, recommendations, legislative proposals, national studies, and independent monitoring.
This work covers many areas, including access to justice, legal capacity, inclusive dt living, accessibility, political participation, the right to vote, employment, social protection, and sexual and reproductive rights.
Among its main achievements are Portugal First National Study on public perceptions of persons with disabilities and the First Independent Monitoring report on the implementation of the convention covering the period 2017-2026.
These achievements show the important role that independent monitoring frameworks play in making the convention a reality and helping governments develop better public policies.
But 20 years after the convention was adopted, one important challenge remains.
Creating an independent monitoring framework is only the beginning.
To do their work well, these bodies need independence.
They need operational autonomy, they need stable funding, they need qualified staff, and they need strong technical capacity.
When we consolidate independent monitoring frameworks, we reinforce the convention itself.
We make monitoring more independent, more credible, and based on evidence.
We improve transparency, accountability, and help create a better public policies.
Independent monitoring frameworks are not there to judge governments, they are there to support them.
They do this through independent monitoring, constructive recommendations, and evidence based dialogue.
The convention will achieve its promise only when the right it recognizes become part of the everyday lives of persons with disabilities.
As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the convention, we renew our shared commitment to that goal.
Because reinforcing independent monitoring framework means reinforcing the convention and reinforcing the convention means making human rights a reality for every person with a disability everywhere.
Thank you very much, miss Bumbalo.
I would like to thank all the speakers in part for Your contribution reminds us that the implementation of the convention is a shared responsibility, firmly grounded in the leadership and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities.
Especially I thanks Her Excelly miss Sang M Yun, ambassador and permanent representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations of Peace at Geneaa today with us.
Now we will have a shortly break time 2 minutes to change Party five.
Thank you so much.
We now reached party five, our closing segment.
As we look forward to the third decade of the convention, we will hear perspectives that connect the committee's work with the aspirations, participation, and leadership of present and future generation.
I first invite miss Lola Dress, a student at the University of Washington to deliver her closing remark.
Miss Dress, you have the floor.
It's not working.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson and distinguished members of the committee, past and present for your continuous work and advocacy and support of persons with disabilities.
My name is Laurel Adré and I am a university student at the University of Washington in America.
I am beyond excited and grateful to be here today, let alone be presented the opportunity to voice my thoughts in celebration of such a monumental human rights treaty.
I was only 1.5-years-old when the convention was adopted.
I have no memory of a time before the convention and no personal experience of the work it took to become reality or what it took or what it felt like for persons with disabilities at the time and before the convention was adopted.
What I can speak to though, is what it means to me that there is now a human rights instrument that recognizes my right to be treated with dignity and with my wife as I choose.
An instrument that sees me as a person first, before as a person with a disability.
That recognizes the rights of every young person like me to an education, to a career of our choosing, to make decisions about our bodies and our relationships, and to live freely on an equal basis with our peers.
At a time when human rights are under threat, including within my own country and persons with disabilities are disparaged by those at the highest level of government, it gives me hope knowing that the principles in the CRPD have been recognized by so many, but there's still much work left to be done.
I am one of too few young persons with disabilities to have had access to an education and mostly grown up with access to sufficient food, healthcare, and a safe environment free from violence.
I am one of even fewer young persons with disabilities to be pursuing a career in law and to be studying international human rights in a place like Geneva.
Up until this point, we have not fully been recognized as the leaders we are and have the capacity to be in the feminist movement, the climate justice and racial justice movement, the humanitarian movement, and the reproductive justice movement.
On behalf of all young persons like me, I would like to thank each of you sitting here today or listening in on the livestream for the work that you have done to bring the CRPD into being and for believing in and advocating for its core principles and purposes.
I would also like to thank my colleagues here with me today for also giving me hope that the future and disability and human rights is in the right and capable hands.
I am inspired daily by your insights and dedication to eliminating inequality and supporting human rights.
Rest assured, we young people are ready and engaged to tackle the world handed to us.
We are ready to continue the hard work and advocacy that the committee supports so that 20 years from now, we can look back at two decades of further change and progress.
We recognize that the treaty has provided us with a solid foundation on which we can build upon and improve.
The treaty gives us a common language and a reference point to always fall back upon.
W times may change and priorities may shift, we will always be committed to bringing about a world that fits all of us exactly as we are.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I now invite you, misses Saline Bantil, Palompi medalist and member of the Grandee Council of the Republic and Canton of Cenv.
Miss Bantil, you have the floor.
Madame Monsieur Amit, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for your work.
Thank you, Chairperson.
I'm Cline Vantil.
I was born in 1991 in 2008.
I had a serious horse riding accident.
It left me partially disabled.
I had a cranial traumatism.
I had to relearn the very straightforward gestures of life, speaking and simply walking.
I'm now an elite sports woman.
I'm the double world champion in para cycling and the three times a European champion, Paralympic vice champion, as well as an deputy and MP of the grand conce de Republi and the canton of Geneva.
I was also elected to the Parliament of the Republic in the Canton of Geneva 20 years ago in 2006, the UN adopted the CRPD.
20 years, it's a great age to be.
Since then, there have been many changes.
There are projects, initiatives that have been taken, but I think the greatest change is how society looks at us now.
How does society look at persons with disabilities? We've moved from integration, living alongside each other to inclusion, which is living amongst others.
Inclusion has been developed in several areas in society.
I would like to talk about sport.
Although, of course, the path is still a lengthy one ahead.
Para port, I think it's really developed over the years.
The Paralympics, I think are an excellent example of this.
The Paris 2024 Paralympics were exemplary in that regard.
A Swiss journalist said, In the Olympic Games, we're trying to seek out stories to tell.
But in the Paralympic Games, each athlete has a story.
Paris 2024 has shown that how people look at disability has shifted and that society has now moved into a new era.
Over time, disability has taken a more important place in society.
The skills and competencies of persons with disabilities are in valued increasingly and I think we need to welcome that.
But it is true that we have not yet entirely got what we wanted and reached the end of this path.
Ten years ago in 2006, the UN adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Switzerland ratified this convention 12 years ago.
Changes have been brought about, but I think we can say that there is a mixed outcome.
We need to defend continuously, the situation of persons with disabilities in our society.
I think we need to fight, still fight, continue the struggle to ensure that society is inclusive in all areas of life.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you very much, miss Benin, for your speech.
Excellency, distinguished colleagues, partners, and dear friend.
As we come to the end of this symsrom, allow me to share a few final reflection, not only as the chairman of the committee on the lives of persons with disabilities, but also as a women with disabilities, whose one life has been shaped by the struggle for equality and dignity.
20 years ago, the international community adopted the convention and made a historical promise.
Persons with disability are not object our charity, were our protection.
We are rightholders, equal in dignity and entitled to autonomy, participation, and full inclusion in society.
The recognition transformed international law and influenced national laws and policies.
Most importantly, it changes what persons with disabilities could rightfully expect from their governments and societies.
But the convention was only the beginning.
Over the past 20 years, the committee has worked to turn the world of the convention into the meaningful change in people's everyday lives.
We have engaged with state parties, national human rights institutions, civil society, and other or persons with disabilities and their representative organizations.
This work is never a strength.
Beyond every effort, we exam is a person waiting to enter an accessible school, leave an institution, make decisions about their own life, find the dist world, participate in public affair, or simply live safely and with dignity in the community.
Beyond every recommendation of the committee lies fundamental questions.
Hence, the convention made a real difference in the life of a person with disabilities.
Today, more than one point billion people with disabilities experience significant difficulties and struggles.
For them, this anniversary cannot be only a celebration of what has been written or promised.
It must be a commitment to what will actually be changed.
The conventions certificate must therefore be dedicate of implementation and accountability.
Right must move from legislation into classroom, workplace, hospital, court polling station, and communities.
Persons with disabilities must not simply be consulted at the decision have been made.
They must participate from the beginning as leaders, expert, and co creators of the society in which they lives.
For me, the convention is ultimately about something both profound and simple, the rights of every person with disability to live an ordinary life with freedom, equality, dignity, and hope.
The true measure of our success will not be the number of the standards we adopt, but the concrete transformation those standards bring to people with disabilities lives.
Le Codion was only the beginning.
Our shared responsibility now is to turn rights on paper into lived justice and to ensure that non person with disability anywhere in the world is left waiting for another 20 years.
People crossing, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our distinguished speakers, current, former committee members, our colleagues of the members, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Organization of Persons with Disabilities, Civil Society partners, especially interpreters, sign language interpreters, captioners, technical colleagues, and everyone join us here and online.
I extend a special aspiration to person with disbes around the world who are watching us through UN Web PB today.
Your voices, experience, and aspiration remain at the heart of the convention and of everything this committee does.
As we conclude both this simple June and the 35th session of the committee, I would like to briefly highlight the important work accomplished During this session.
The committee adopted general committee number nine on Article 11, generally comme number ten also on Article 11, general committee number 11 on Article 29.
The guidelines on identifying and addressing intersectional discrimination against women and girls with disabilities, the guideline on identifying and addressing disability based violence.
Concluding observation on the initial report of Qatar and on the periodic report of Chile, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Sri Lanka.
A statement on the Global Declaration on brail literacy in education, a statement on the draft additional protocol to the Obedo Convention on biotics, once again, calling upon the Council of Europe to withdraw the draft because it is incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of personal Disabilities.
A on achieving universal ratification of the convention, and on state regarding the intergovernmental process leading to the adoption of a legally binding instrument on the rights of older persons.
These achievements reflect the extraordinary dedication of the member of the committee, the Secretariat, and all those who support our work together this demanding session.
They also remind us that adopting a standard is not the end of our responsibility.
Our task is to ensure that these standards lead to substantive equality and bring tango changes to the everyday lives of persons with disability around the world.
Thank you all for your commitment, cooperation, and partnership.
I now declare the 866th meeting of the committee on the rights of persons with disabilities closed.
Thank you so much.
There is an announce from the Secretary of Peace after this meeting.
Thank you to all the participants in this symposium.
Just a brief announcement that International Disability Alliance is offering a reception here in the main hall of tempus beginning at six.
Thank you so much.