Several weeks ago, I attended a training on ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. The facilitator, Yuyun Wahyuningrum, is a prominent human rights activist from a Jakarta-based NGO, Human Rights Working Group (HRWG). The training was really useful for me and I believe that it is important for anyone interested in working in developing human rights agenda in the region. Herewith I am attaching a link to the briefing note of the training. I hope this can be useful for you:
http://www.hrwg.org/en/asean/current-situation/item/4336-briefing-note-asean-human-rights-systems
Sunday, 26 May 2013
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Don't use "Bahasa" to label our language, please
It annoys me to hell every time I hear somebody call the Indonesian language as "bahasa". That is not the proper term for it, which should be "bahasa Indonesia".
Bahasa in Malay/Indonesian means "language". How do you feel when you hear somebody label the English language as "language"? I know that would sound really weird for me. Most people would label it either as English, or in full as the "English language". But nobody in their right mind would call it simply as "language".
The same goes for Indonesian. Either use the word "Indonesian" or the Indonesian language. Or if you really want to use a Malay/Indonesian term, use bahasa Indonesia. Never use only Bahasa.
Human Rights Issues of the Week: Killings of Terrorist Suspects
Human rights issue of this week is last week's killings of 4 terrorist suspects in Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia, on Saturday, 5 January 2013. The suspects were killed by the Indonesian Special anti-Terrorist Squad, Densus 88. According to the police, the squad had to shoot to kill in order to protect themselves against possible suicide bombers. Several suspects were wearing vests, who later on were confirmed wired with bombs.
The shootings sparked a debate regarding the conduct of Densus 88. Critics accused them to be 'trigger happy' and did not really try to capture the terrorists alive to be brought to trial. The day before, on Friday 4 January 2013, the squad carried out an operation in Sulawesi, where they also killed two terrorist suspects and captured the other four.
The police seems to have a legitimate basis of action. Their lives were threaten by the possibility of suicidal attacks from the suspects. On the other hand, the number of killings are very high. The total suspects of both operations in Nusa Tenggara Barat and Sulawesi are 11 people, however, the police only managed to captured 5 people alive, while the other 6 were killed. This begs the question: how hard the police tried to convince the suspects to surrender alive.
On this issue I really cannot take any position yet, unless I can get more information later on. Right now, I can see that the squad has a legitimate reason to shoot. However, I do feel that some kind of assessment and evaluation on how Densus 88 operate should be carried out. Densus 88 should be placed under public scrutiny and cannot be allowed to move outside and beyond the law. There has to be an accountability mechanism that the public can see. Only then we can be sure that the unit's actions are legitimate and are necessary for public safety and security.
Links (all Indonesian. Sorry, I couldn't find any news on this in English):
http://www.beritasatu.com/nasional/90702-jat-mengutuk-penembakan-7-terduga-teroris-oleh-densus.html
http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/01/05/058452279
The shootings sparked a debate regarding the conduct of Densus 88. Critics accused them to be 'trigger happy' and did not really try to capture the terrorists alive to be brought to trial. The day before, on Friday 4 January 2013, the squad carried out an operation in Sulawesi, where they also killed two terrorist suspects and captured the other four.
The police seems to have a legitimate basis of action. Their lives were threaten by the possibility of suicidal attacks from the suspects. On the other hand, the number of killings are very high. The total suspects of both operations in Nusa Tenggara Barat and Sulawesi are 11 people, however, the police only managed to captured 5 people alive, while the other 6 were killed. This begs the question: how hard the police tried to convince the suspects to surrender alive.
On this issue I really cannot take any position yet, unless I can get more information later on. Right now, I can see that the squad has a legitimate reason to shoot. However, I do feel that some kind of assessment and evaluation on how Densus 88 operate should be carried out. Densus 88 should be placed under public scrutiny and cannot be allowed to move outside and beyond the law. There has to be an accountability mechanism that the public can see. Only then we can be sure that the unit's actions are legitimate and are necessary for public safety and security.
Links (all Indonesian. Sorry, I couldn't find any news on this in English):
http://www.beritasatu.com/nasional/90702-jat-mengutuk-penembakan-7-terduga-teroris-oleh-densus.html
http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/01/05/058452279
Sunday, 6 January 2013
Human Rights Issue of the Week: Female Motorcyle Driver in Aceh
Human rights issue of the week in Indonesia is a controversial bylaw from the city of Lhokseumawe, in Aceh province, that bans female motorcyle driver to sit astride on the motorbike. Local government, who proposed this bylaw, said that such action is considered "un-Islamic" and therefore should be banned.
The local mayor said that the law does not ban women to ride motorcycle and that they can still sit astride when they are driving. However, when a woman becomes a passenger she has to sit side-saddle. Proponents say that this bylaw is aimed to protect women, because by sitting astride they might provoke "immoral behavior" from the men who see them.
Obviously, this law quickly garners a lot of criticism both from inside and outside Aceh. Critics say, correctly, that this law is degrading to women, because it assumes that women are the source of immoral behavior. Rather than protecting women by creating stronger legal framework to punish sexual offenders (who are mostly male), this law seeks to put women as the object to be controlled and regulated.
Aceh is the only province in Indonesia that applies strict Sharia law. This bylaw, however, will only apply to the city of Lhokseumawe and not to the whole province. Some activists are calling for the central government to strike down the law because it contradicts law no. 39/1999 on human rights.
This event is the latest of a series of controversies involving the application of sharia in Aceh. In 2011, the Aceh government forcibly shut down a punk music concert in Banda Aceh, the provincial capital, detained about a dozen of punks and sent them to a re-education camp. They declared that punk music is 'un-Islamic' and therefore should not be allowed in Aceh.
Sources:
Indonesia city to ban women 'straddling motorbikes' from BBC
Lhoksheumawe larang perempuan duduk ngangkang (in Indonesian)
Indonesia's Aceh punk shaved for 'reeducation' from BBC
The local mayor said that the law does not ban women to ride motorcycle and that they can still sit astride when they are driving. However, when a woman becomes a passenger she has to sit side-saddle. Proponents say that this bylaw is aimed to protect women, because by sitting astride they might provoke "immoral behavior" from the men who see them.
Obviously, this law quickly garners a lot of criticism both from inside and outside Aceh. Critics say, correctly, that this law is degrading to women, because it assumes that women are the source of immoral behavior. Rather than protecting women by creating stronger legal framework to punish sexual offenders (who are mostly male), this law seeks to put women as the object to be controlled and regulated.
Aceh is the only province in Indonesia that applies strict Sharia law. This bylaw, however, will only apply to the city of Lhokseumawe and not to the whole province. Some activists are calling for the central government to strike down the law because it contradicts law no. 39/1999 on human rights.
This event is the latest of a series of controversies involving the application of sharia in Aceh. In 2011, the Aceh government forcibly shut down a punk music concert in Banda Aceh, the provincial capital, detained about a dozen of punks and sent them to a re-education camp. They declared that punk music is 'un-Islamic' and therefore should not be allowed in Aceh.
Sources:
Indonesia city to ban women 'straddling motorbikes' from BBC
Lhoksheumawe larang perempuan duduk ngangkang (in Indonesian)
Indonesia's Aceh punk shaved for 'reeducation' from BBC
Thursday, 3 January 2013
ASEAN Human Rights Declaration
Association of Southeast Asian Nations finally officially adopted its long awaited ASEAN Human Rights Declaration at the ASEAN Head of States meeting at 19 November 2012. You can see the declaration here.
Before the official announcement, observers and critic had been afraid that the coming Declaration would not be up to the international standards of human rights protection. The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) - the drafting committee - was heavily criticized, in particular for its lack of transparency. AICHR did open many consultation process with civil society organizations. However, observers said that these consultations often effectively went one way, with representatives from the civil society giving inputs and ideas with relatively minimum response or feedback from members of AICHR. Also, the general public were not given many opportunities to see the draft of the declaration. The civil society had no way of knowing whether their recommendations were incorporated into the declaration or not.
Another issue is the composition of AICHR. In accordance to its Term of Reference (see here), in particular article 5, each member of AICHR represents his/her own government and is accountable to his/her government. Critics say that this would compromise the independence of the Commission. Many questioned the sincerity of ASEAN to build a true human rights regime in Southeast Asia.(i)
When the Declaration was announced, it was received with mixed responses from civil society organizations in Southeast Asia. Critics point out that several provisions in the declaration have the potential to weaken ASEAN members' commitments towards human rights because they set a lower standard compared to the existing international human rights conventions and treaties.
Reading at the Declaration, I would say that the most problematic provisions are paragraph 6 - 8 of the General Principles. I quote them below (emphases are mine):
The three paragraphs above contain some words that echo the Asian Values Debate of three decades ago(ii). In short, proponents of the Asian Values say that human rights principles should be adjusted into the national and regional context to be applicable. Asian communities, they continue, put more emphasis on the importance of the group (society or the community) over the individuals, and that individuals should put forward their obligations and duties towards the community before claiming their rights. In addition, for Asian societies public morality is an important issue and that the state should act as its guardian. At least, this is what their proponents claimed.
The main problem with these three paragraphs is that they provide an opportunity for governments to not provide maximum human rights protection to its citizens. The term "national and regional context" is a handy excuse for governments to not fulfill certain human rights obligations. The concept of "duties" is also useful to shift responsibilities away from governments to the individual citizens. And "Public morality" is a vague concept. Often times it is used to justify repressive actions against certain groups, in particular LGBTs and women.
However, even with these flaws, I remain an optimist. I think the AHRD should be considered as "a living document"(iii). Meaning that its eventual understanding and interpretation will pretty much depend on the actions of ASEAN members in the future. Also, this is the first broadly-based non-binding human rights declaration for ASEAN(iv). The next step after this is to produce a more binding human rights document in the form of ASEAN Convention on Human Rights. Such document will have greater impact for the building of a human rights regime in the future. We hope, if it ever happens at all, the document will be more progressive than the one we have now.
End notes:
Another issue is the composition of AICHR. In accordance to its Term of Reference (see here), in particular article 5, each member of AICHR represents his/her own government and is accountable to his/her government. Critics say that this would compromise the independence of the Commission. Many questioned the sincerity of ASEAN to build a true human rights regime in Southeast Asia.(i)
When the Declaration was announced, it was received with mixed responses from civil society organizations in Southeast Asia. Critics point out that several provisions in the declaration have the potential to weaken ASEAN members' commitments towards human rights because they set a lower standard compared to the existing international human rights conventions and treaties.
Reading at the Declaration, I would say that the most problematic provisions are paragraph 6 - 8 of the General Principles. I quote them below (emphases are mine):
6. The enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms must be balanced with the performance of corresponding duties as every person has responsibilities to all other individuals, the community and the society where one lives. It is ultimately the primary responsibility of all ASEAN Member States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
7. All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. All human rights and fundamental freedoms in this Declaration must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. At the same time, the realisation of human rights must be considered in the regional and national context bearing in mind different political, economic, legal, social, cultural, historical and religious backgrounds.
8. The human rights and fundamental freedoms of every person shall be exercised with due regard to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. The exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others, and to meet the just requirements of national security, public order, public health, public safety, public morality, as well as the general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society.
The three paragraphs above contain some words that echo the Asian Values Debate of three decades ago(ii). In short, proponents of the Asian Values say that human rights principles should be adjusted into the national and regional context to be applicable. Asian communities, they continue, put more emphasis on the importance of the group (society or the community) over the individuals, and that individuals should put forward their obligations and duties towards the community before claiming their rights. In addition, for Asian societies public morality is an important issue and that the state should act as its guardian. At least, this is what their proponents claimed.
The main problem with these three paragraphs is that they provide an opportunity for governments to not provide maximum human rights protection to its citizens. The term "national and regional context" is a handy excuse for governments to not fulfill certain human rights obligations. The concept of "duties" is also useful to shift responsibilities away from governments to the individual citizens. And "Public morality" is a vague concept. Often times it is used to justify repressive actions against certain groups, in particular LGBTs and women.
However, even with these flaws, I remain an optimist. I think the AHRD should be considered as "a living document"(iii). Meaning that its eventual understanding and interpretation will pretty much depend on the actions of ASEAN members in the future. Also, this is the first broadly-based non-binding human rights declaration for ASEAN(iv). The next step after this is to produce a more binding human rights document in the form of ASEAN Convention on Human Rights. Such document will have greater impact for the building of a human rights regime in the future. We hope, if it ever happens at all, the document will be more progressive than the one we have now.
End notes:
(i) There is also an issue related to ASEAN's principle of non-intervention. For more discussion on this principle and its relation to building a human rights regime in Southeast Asia, please go here.
(ii) For an introduction on Asian Values go here. You can also read a dissenting article from Amartya Sen on why Asian Values actually do not contradict universal human rights values here. There is also a good wikipedia article you can read as a reference point of the debate here.
(iii) I am borrowing this phrase of "AHRD is a living document" from Yuyun Wahyuninggrum, from Human Rights Working Group (an Indonesian based NGOs Coalition) at a conference in Bali, November last year.
(iv) ASEAN has at least two other human rights declaration before the AHRD: the ASEAN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the ASEAN Declaration Against Trafficking in Persons Particularly Women and Children
(ii) For an introduction on Asian Values go here. You can also read a dissenting article from Amartya Sen on why Asian Values actually do not contradict universal human rights values here. There is also a good wikipedia article you can read as a reference point of the debate here.
(iii) I am borrowing this phrase of "AHRD is a living document" from Yuyun Wahyuninggrum, from Human Rights Working Group (an Indonesian based NGOs Coalition) at a conference in Bali, November last year.
(iv) ASEAN has at least two other human rights declaration before the AHRD: the ASEAN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the ASEAN Declaration Against Trafficking in Persons Particularly Women and Children
Wednesday, 2 January 2013
2013 Resolutions
So I have several new year's resolutions that I would like to share. Here are they:
1. I want to travel more this year. Last year was really terrible. I only went to 2 places outside Jakarta. One was Ujung Kulon, in West Java, and the other one was Bali for a conference. I have to improve that this year. This year, I have to travel to at least one Southeast Asian country and three domestic destinations outside Jakarta (and Bandung, because traveling to Bandung does not count as traveling outside Jakarta).
2. In terms of books read, last year was actually really good. I finished a number of good books. However, I do notice that I mostly read fictions and in English. I only finished three non fiction works last year, one from Francis Fukuyama ("the Origins of Political Order") and two from Richard Dawkins ("the God Delusion" and "The Magic of Reality"). This year, I have to double that to six non fiction works. I also have to finish at least 3 Indonesian novels this year (I tried to read an Indonesian novel last year, but it was so boring I just gave up after 5 pages. However, I heard there are some pretty good Indonesian novels now, so fingers crossed I can achieve this).
3. In terms of work, I need to find something more stable and more long term. I love my current job, but it doesn't give me stability and security.
4. I need to lose at least 10 kilograms this year. I gained a lot of weight last year.
5. I want to have a more regular update for this blog. I created this blog on February last year, and since then I have 14 blog posts for the English version and 17 posts for Indonesian (a total of 31 posts. They are not translation of each other, by the way). That's actually not bad. This year I want to top that number. I don't know whether I can do it, considering that I had been very lazy at the last 2-3 months of last year. But let's just put this here as a reminder for me.
And there you go, my 5 resolutions. All of them will be a real challenge for me, but I guess the hardest one will be number one. The rest should be comparatively easier, I think.
1. I want to travel more this year. Last year was really terrible. I only went to 2 places outside Jakarta. One was Ujung Kulon, in West Java, and the other one was Bali for a conference. I have to improve that this year. This year, I have to travel to at least one Southeast Asian country and three domestic destinations outside Jakarta (and Bandung, because traveling to Bandung does not count as traveling outside Jakarta).
2. In terms of books read, last year was actually really good. I finished a number of good books. However, I do notice that I mostly read fictions and in English. I only finished three non fiction works last year, one from Francis Fukuyama ("the Origins of Political Order") and two from Richard Dawkins ("the God Delusion" and "The Magic of Reality"). This year, I have to double that to six non fiction works. I also have to finish at least 3 Indonesian novels this year (I tried to read an Indonesian novel last year, but it was so boring I just gave up after 5 pages. However, I heard there are some pretty good Indonesian novels now, so fingers crossed I can achieve this).
3. In terms of work, I need to find something more stable and more long term. I love my current job, but it doesn't give me stability and security.
4. I need to lose at least 10 kilograms this year. I gained a lot of weight last year.
5. I want to have a more regular update for this blog. I created this blog on February last year, and since then I have 14 blog posts for the English version and 17 posts for Indonesian (a total of 31 posts. They are not translation of each other, by the way). That's actually not bad. This year I want to top that number. I don't know whether I can do it, considering that I had been very lazy at the last 2-3 months of last year. But let's just put this here as a reminder for me.
And there you go, my 5 resolutions. All of them will be a real challenge for me, but I guess the hardest one will be number one. The rest should be comparatively easier, I think.
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Regional Human Rights Declarations and Conventions around the World
This article also appears at: http://www2.agendaasia.org/index.php/news/151-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-in-regional-human-rights-declarations-and-conventions-around-the-world
In November, head of states of Association of South East Asian Nations ( ASEAN) will gather in Phnom Penh for the 21st ASEAN Summit. There, they are expected to adopt the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), which will represent a major milestone in the struggle for human rights in Southeast Asia, including for the human rights of persons with disabilities. Since the beginning of the drafting process, disabled people’s organizations have been involved in the consultation process with the drafting committee, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Committee on Human Rights (AICHR). They have lobbied, discussed and given inputs and suggestions to the committee on how to include the rights of persons with disabilities in the declarations. It is expected that the declaration will include several provisions on disabilities.
In the anticipation for the upcoming declaration, it is important for us to understand how other (and older) regional human rights declarations recognize disability rights. Such understanding will enable us to assess where we stand so far in terms of giving protection to the rights of persons with disabilities.
The oldest regional human rights declaration is the Organization of American States (OAS) Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, which actually predated even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The OAS Declaration was adopted in April 1948 in Bogota, Colombia, whereas the UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 in Paris.
Interestingly , both the UDHR and the OAS Declaration, in regards to disability rights, seem to have almost identical wording. Article 25 (1) of the UDHR says that:
Whereas article XVI of the OAS Declaration says:
This seems to reflect the spirit of the time where the rights of persons with disabilities were not central to the contemporary understanding of human rights. Both declarations only mention disability in relation to the right to social security and services. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was signed in 1950 (and came into force in 1953), does not mention disability at all.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was much more progressive in terms of disability rights than the two older regional human rights mechanisms. Article 18 (4) of the charter recognizes that:
At the time this charter was adopted by the African Union in 1981 this provision was considered to be very progressive. There are a number of reasons for this inclusion. One is the increased global recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities. The year 1981, the year when the Charter was adopted, was designated by the UN General Assembly as the International Year of Disabled People. Various developments in the African continent itself, such as the existence of numerous conflicts in the continent which left a significant proportion of the African population with disabilities, may also compel the drafter to include special provisions for disabled people. However, the Charter still uses the charity-based approach which focuses on providing protection and care. It does not put the rights of persons with disability as part of human rights.
The African Charter also has an additional protocol on Rights of Women in Africa (also called the Maputo protocol, which was adopted by the African Union in 2003). Article 23 of the Protocol recognizes the special rights of women with disabilities. It says:
The most recent regional human rights instrument is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This charter was adopted in 2000 and by far the most progressive in terms of disability rights. It has a non-discrimination principle in Article 21 that includes disability, which says:
Even more progressive is article 26 which obliges the European Union members to:
Looking at all the regional declarations and conventions, we can see a clear progression on the recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities throughout the world. The expectation is that the AHRD will be able to at least equal the other regional human rights instruments.
Links for all the regional human rights instruments:
The European Convention on Human Rights
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights:
Maputo Protocol
In November, head of states of Association of South East Asian Nations ( ASEAN) will gather in Phnom Penh for the 21st ASEAN Summit. There, they are expected to adopt the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), which will represent a major milestone in the struggle for human rights in Southeast Asia, including for the human rights of persons with disabilities. Since the beginning of the drafting process, disabled people’s organizations have been involved in the consultation process with the drafting committee, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Committee on Human Rights (AICHR). They have lobbied, discussed and given inputs and suggestions to the committee on how to include the rights of persons with disabilities in the declarations. It is expected that the declaration will include several provisions on disabilities.
In the anticipation for the upcoming declaration, it is important for us to understand how other (and older) regional human rights declarations recognize disability rights. Such understanding will enable us to assess where we stand so far in terms of giving protection to the rights of persons with disabilities.
The oldest regional human rights declaration is the Organization of American States (OAS) Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, which actually predated even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The OAS Declaration was adopted in April 1948 in Bogota, Colombia, whereas the UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 in Paris.
Interestingly , both the UDHR and the OAS Declaration, in regards to disability rights, seem to have almost identical wording. Article 25 (1) of the UDHR says that:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
Whereas article XVI of the OAS Declaration says:
"Every person has the right to social security which will protect him from the consequences of unemployment, old age, and any disabilities arising from causes beyond his control that make it physically or mentally impossible for him to earn a living."
This seems to reflect the spirit of the time where the rights of persons with disabilities were not central to the contemporary understanding of human rights. Both declarations only mention disability in relation to the right to social security and services. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was signed in 1950 (and came into force in 1953), does not mention disability at all.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was much more progressive in terms of disability rights than the two older regional human rights mechanisms. Article 18 (4) of the charter recognizes that:
"The aged and the disabled shall also have the right to special measures of protection in keeping with their physical or moral needs."
At the time this charter was adopted by the African Union in 1981 this provision was considered to be very progressive. There are a number of reasons for this inclusion. One is the increased global recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities. The year 1981, the year when the Charter was adopted, was designated by the UN General Assembly as the International Year of Disabled People. Various developments in the African continent itself, such as the existence of numerous conflicts in the continent which left a significant proportion of the African population with disabilities, may also compel the drafter to include special provisions for disabled people. However, the Charter still uses the charity-based approach which focuses on providing protection and care. It does not put the rights of persons with disability as part of human rights.
The African Charter also has an additional protocol on Rights of Women in Africa (also called the Maputo protocol, which was adopted by the African Union in 2003). Article 23 of the Protocol recognizes the special rights of women with disabilities. It says:
The States Parties undertake to:
a) ensure the protection of women with disabilities and take specific measures commensurate with their physical, economic and social needs to facilitate their access to employment, professional and vocational training as well as their participation in decision-making;
b) ensure the right of women with disabilities to freedom from violence, including sexual abuse, discrimination based on disability and the right to be treated with dignity.
The most recent regional human rights instrument is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This charter was adopted in 2000 and by far the most progressive in terms of disability rights. It has a non-discrimination principle in Article 21 that includes disability, which says:
"Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."
Even more progressive is article 26 which obliges the European Union members to:
"...recognizes and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community..."
Looking at all the regional declarations and conventions, we can see a clear progression on the recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities throughout the world. The expectation is that the AHRD will be able to at least equal the other regional human rights instruments.
Links for all the regional human rights instruments:
The European Convention on Human Rights
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights:
Maputo Protocol
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)