1

Monitoring Symposium: A Contribution to the Formulation of Proposals for Monitoring a 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities 

Report 

U.S. National Council on Disability 

American University, School of International Service 

Mental Disability Rights International 

American University, Butler Board Room 

October 24, 2005 

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements 2 

I. Introduction and Context 2

II. General Considerations and Observations 3

III. Specific Considerations and Observations 4 

i) Monitoring institutions and mechanisms 5 

 a) Composition, financing and transparency of monitoring institutions 5 

 b) Expanding traditional notions of human rights monitoring institutions 6 

 c) Beyond self-reporting: “reverse reporting,” external monitoring and 8 

 challenge inspection systems 

 d) Information gathering methodologies & monitoring 11 

 e) National plans of action 12 

ii) Measures to support implementation – “implementation facilitators” 14 

 a) Public awareness and capacity building 14 

 b) Financial mechanisms to support treaty implementation 14 

iii) Roles of key stakeholders in monitoring and implementation 16 

 a) The role of governments in monitoring & implementation processes 16

 b) The role of NGOs in monitoring and implementation 16

 c) The Role of other relevant stakeholders in monitoring and implementation 18

ANNEX 1 – Symposium Agenda 

ANNEX 2 – Useful Resources 

ANNEX 3 – List of Participants

ANNEX 4 – Organizational Bios
2

Acknowledgements

The sponsoring organizations would like to express their appreciation to Katherine N. Guernsey 

and Janet E. Lord who co-facilitated the Symposium and drafted this Report. We are also 

grateful for the contributions of Leah Harris, Program Assistant, American University, and 

Renee Marlin-Bennett, Professor, International Politics, American University, who contributed 

their time and energy to the hosting of the Symposium at American University. Thanks are also 

due to the Symposium Rappporteurs, both of whom are students at American University, 

Lindsey Barna and Alison Long. 

I. Introduction and Context

On October 24, 2005, the U.S. National Council on Disability, the American University, School 

of International Service, and Mental Disability Rights International, hosted a half-day meeting of 

an inter-disciplinary group of scholars, practitioners, government delegates, and disability 

activists, to consider the following questions in relation to the future monitoring of a new UN 

Convention on the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities: 

• What mechanisms can be used to solicit information from States Parties regarding their 

implementation of the Convention?

• What mechanisms can be used to collect and respond to the information submitted by 

States Parties regarding their implementation of the Convention?

• What mechanisms can be used to provide constructive feedback to States Parties 

regarding the sufficiency of their compliance with convention obligations?

• How can all relevant stakeholders (especially people with disabilities and their 

representative organizations) participate meaningfully in the above-mentioned processes? 

A number of members of the Ad Hoc Committee, established to develop a UN Convention on 

the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities, have specifically requested the submission of 

ideas to assist in the Committee’s consideration of a monitoring mechanism for the Convention. 

The objective of the meeting was therefore to be responsive to this request, through the 

generation of creative ideas in response to the above monitoring-related questions. The meeting 

utilized a mixture of formal presentations and facilitated dialogue, and took into consideration 

some of the monitoring proposals already before the Ad Hoc Committee, the on-going discussion 

related to reform of the existing human rights treaty bodies, as well as the need for linkage to the 

larger issue of treaty implementation. With specific regard to the on-going treaty reform process, 

the participants noted that: 

• Modernization of the existing treaty monitoring system is a key element in the UN goal 

of promoting and protecting human rights 

• Treaty reform proposals include: 

o a more coordinated approach to treaty body activities 

o standardization of reporting requirements 

o production of a single report by States Parties to address all human rights treaties 

to which they are a member 

o calls for a unified body 

• Treaty reform proposals have attempted to respond to critique that the existing system is: 
3

o insufficiently effective or efficient 

o lacking in inter-body coordination 

o overly politicized in some instances 

o overly burdensome on treaty bodies and States Parties filing reports 

• Issue missing from discussions of human rights treaty body reform include: 

o some diversity in approach is needed to accommodate concerns of different issue 

areas 

o there may be too great a focus on reporting and not enough attention given to 

effectiveness of monitoring and treaty implementation as a whole 

o there may be too much deference given to the issue of “burden” on States Parties, 

and not enough focus on benefits to States Parties of participation in monitoring, 

e.g. through submission of reports 

The ideas and observations raised by participants during the course of the meeting are set forth in 

the report that follows. They are not presented in the form of a formal proposal or draft article 

language, but rather reflect key concepts and principles that the Committee may find helpful to 

consider. In addition, some of the examples, illustrations and resources from existing treaty 

contexts that were highlighted by participants have also been included. It should be noted that 

the suggestions are drawn from the meeting discussions, but do not necessarily reflect the 

opinion of the meeting group as a whole, nor should they be considered as reflective of the views 

or positions of specific participants or the organizations they represented at the meeting. 

II. General Considerations and Observations

A wide variety of views and perspectives were put forward during the meeting, and to the extent 

possible these observations have been captured in the thematic sections that follow. Because of 

the interrelated and often overlapping nature of the subject matter, these observations have not 

been divided by national or international level, though it is understood that the draft convention 

does currently make the distinction between national and international level monitoring. 

The participants highlighted a number of issues of general applicability that they felt should be 

addressed in the operation of the monitoring mechanism developed within the framework of the 

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, whether it is operating at national or 

international levels: 

1. Adherence to human rights principles – the objective of the monitoring mechanism 

should be to promote the implementation of Convention obligations, but, equally 

important, the process by which the monitoring mechanism operates should itself 

comport with human rights standards and principles. For example, it was noted that 

reporting or inquiry procedures utilized by a treaty body should not lead to violation of, 

for instance, the rights to privacy and bodily integrity of an individual whose enjoyment 

of rights under the Convention is in question. 

2. Transparency – except where transparency may need to be balanced against individuals’ 

rights to privacy, transparency should be fostered in the monitoring system in order to 

facilitate the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. 
4

3. Commitment to capacity building & technical assistance – it was noted that the 

varying capacities of both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders may lead to 

disparities in ability to meaningfully participate in the monitoring mechanism, and that 

where possible technical and other forms of assistance should be made available to 

ensure meaningful participation. To the extent possible such capacity building efforts 

should themselves be monitored, to ensure that the activities are appropriate and 

effective. 

4. Coordination with full range of stakeholders – participants highlighted the diverse 

range of stakeholders, including people with disabilities, governments, NGOs (especially 

disabled people’s organizations), UN agencies, other treaty bodies, international 

development organizations and others. Because of the unique contributions each 

stakeholder can make, coupled with resource constraints, engagement of all relevant 

stakeholders should be as coordinated as possible to maximize opportunities for 

stakeholder input and minimize unnecessary duplication of efforts. 

5. Depoliticize and increase expertise – in addressing critique of the current monitoring 

system, a number of participants noted the need to ensure the neutrality of the monitoring 

mechanism, and the need for it to utilize the highest level of expertise. With regard to the 

issue of expertise, it was noted that people with disabilities themselves are best placed to 

offer relevant expertise and perspectives. 

6. Philosophy/approach of the monitoring mechanism & adversarial vs. cooperative 

processes – there was much discussion of the degree to which the monitoring 

mechanism should focus on “catching” States Parties in contravention of their treaty 

obligations, and the extent to which the focus should instead be upon facilitating 

compliance through capacity building and other forms of assistance. Recognizing the 

value of both approaches, some participants suggested a balanced approach, so that the 

process would function as a catalyst for implementation through identification of good 

and bad practice and technical assistance, where appropriate. For example, where noncompliance is identified, constructive feedback, critique and information is provided to 

help facilitate the State’s future compliance. Follow-up is likewise an important 

component of any monitoring process. 

7. Lessons learned – in responding to the current treaty reform process, a number of 

participants noted the need to learn and draw from the experience of the current system, 

at the same time as retaining (with improvements where necessary) those monitoring 

mechanisms that work and with which the various stakeholders have familiarity. 

III. Specific Considerations and Observations 

Symposium participants highlighted a number of more specific and focused considerations and 

observations with regard to monitoring and facilitating the implementation of a UN Convention 

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These specific points were drawn from the diverse 

experience of the participants in the following fields of expertise: international disability rights; 

American disability rights law & policy; international environmental law; arms control and 

humanitarian law; international health law; international organizations; and international 

development. 
5

It should be noted that the observations tended to fall into two categories. Participants provided 

illustrations drawn from their experience in monitoring international and domestic legal 

obligations. In this sense, monitoring relates to mechanisms and processes designed to assess 

and comment upon State compliance with treaty obligations. Participants also drew upon their 

experience to address broader aspects of implementation which may be usefully referred to as 

measures to support implementation, or “implementation facilitators.” In this way, discussion 

moved beyond traditional and quite narrow approaches to human rights treaty implementation 

(which has tended to revolve around monitoring through reporting), and, in some cases, towards 

investigative mechanisms and procedures. 

i) Monitoring institutions and mechanisms 

International agreements typically establish institutions to address how the treaty will be 

monitored and implemented. It is now standard practice for international human rights 

conventions to establish, usually within the treaty itself, committees or “treaty-monitoring 

bodies,” to monitor State compliance with obligations. International environmental treaties have 

particularly well-developed institutions to monitor treaty obligations, as well as measures to 

facilitate treaty implementation. Environmental institutions may take the form of administrative 

secretariats, treaty-monitoring bodies, and scientific and technology advisory committees. 

Institutional bodies also provide civil society with venues for active participation in the process 

of implementation, either through direct contact with the States Parties at Conferences of States 

Parties, or through treaty body procedures, or through the submission of information and reports. 

The monitoring of human rights conventions has typically centered on the assessment of State 

Party periodic reports to the treaty body. Sometimes treaty bodies are mandated to undertake 

more intrusive monitoring roles, such as the review of communications (complaints) procedures, 

fact-finding and inspections. Environmental treaty bodies undertake a variety of functions, 

including monitoring through reporting processes, though they also conduct data gathering and 

analysis, facilitate information exchange and research and capacity building and perform other 

functions related to the implementation of the treaty. Recent developments in treaty monitoring 

in non-human rights spheres focus greater attention on facilitating implementation at the 

domestic level (e.g., through requiring and mandating national action plans) and on providing, 

sometimes through financial mechanisms, technical assistance, especially for developing 

countries. Participants indicated that lessons learned with regard to monitoring and 

implementation across the field of international law should indeed be considered in devising an 

effective monitoring system for the UN Convention on the Human Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities. 

a) Composition, financing and transparency of monitoring institutions 

Questions relating to the composition, financing and transparency of human rights monitoring 

institutions emerge in part out of a growing concern about the effectiveness of such bodies. 

Symposium participants pointed to a number of these concerns: 
6

1. Expertise essential in the composition of treaty monitoring bodies – the composition 

of treaty monitoring institutions is a critical component of their success in monitoring the 

implementation of a UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There is 

a clear need for individuals to possess the relevant expertise on these bodies. An 

international body composed of ‘political hacks’ will be a discredit to the international 

human rights system (as it has been to the UN Human Rights Commission) and must be 

avoided. Experts with human rights and disability expertise – which will indicate a 

strong preference for monitoring bodies to be comprised of people with disabilities 

themselves – is essential. 

2. Term limits – imposing term limits for members of a monitoring body is an important 

dimension of maintaining the long-term independence and effectiveness of the body, 

though this must be balanced against the need to preserve institutional knowledge. 

3. Inadequate funding of treaty monitoring institutions – funding issues have plagued 

human rights treaty bodies for years. There is the clear need for any treaty monitoring 

institutions established within the framework of a UN Convention to be adequately 

resourced, not only in terms of finances, but also in terms of time, skills, and expertise. 

4. Transparency – the work of any monitoring bodies established within the framework of 

a UN Convention should be transparent, unless transparency would infringe upon the 

human rights of individuals. Transparency is especially necessary for meaningful 

involvement of civil society members, who cannot participate if they do not have access 

to information. 

5. Dispute resolution and arbitration – though not utilized in the human rights context 

among States inter-se, it was noted that such mechanisms are certainly relevant in relation 

to individuals filing complaints/communications. Several participants noted the need for 

transparency for effective dispute resolution and/or arbitration, as well as capacitybuilding (especially for developing countries) for all parties to participate meaningfully. 

It should also suggested by some that outcomes should try to reward compliance and not 

just punish non-compliance. It was noted that the 1909 Boundary Waters Convention 

may be a useful reference in this regard, as it has resolved more than 100 water boundary 

disputes. 

b) Expanding traditional notions of human rights monitoring institutions 

There is merit in exploring how traditional approaches to monitoring by human rights institutions 

could be usefully expanded to include components seen in other treaty contexts such as: (i) 

thematic inquiry/investigative panels; (ii) technical advisory bodies; and (iii) conferences of 

states parties. With regard to any monitoring or implementation institution established, it is 

essential to explicitly define roles and mandates to ensure appropriate coordination without 

undue overlap. In this context participants discussed the following: 

1. Thematic inquiry/ investigative procedures – Some monitoring and implementation 

institutions and procedures focus on thematic issues of fundamental importance. 

Monitoring mechanisms that are thematic in nature can usefully address patterns of 

egregious human rights abuses, such as abuses within institutions. Thus, for example, the 

International Labour Organization has developed a specific mechanism to address the 

issue of freedom of association. [See Illustration 1]. With regard to the implementation 
7

of a UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it may be useful to 

consider areas in which thematic issue areas could give rise to a specific body or set of 

procedures. 

2. Technical advisory bodies assist in monitoring and facilitate implementation – 

Where particular expertise is required to assess information relating to the 

implementation of a treaty, technical bodies acting in an advisory capacity may be 

established by treaty provision. Technical committees of this nature typically have datagathering and specific thematic advisory roles, quite apart from the monitoring 

responsibilities of the main treaty monitoring committee. Such treaty-established 

technical bodies typically consist of individuals with particularized expertise in the area 

in question. To provide one illustration, a technical advisory body might be appropriate 

to develop and facilitate implementation of accessibility standards. [See Illustration 2]. 

3. Conference of States Parties – A Conference of States Parties is a mechanism utilized 

by States Parties to an international convention for a variety of purposes such as 

amending the agreement or adopting a protocol to it, assessing strengths and weakness in 

implementation, sharing information and data, and facilitating coordination among all 

stakeholders, including NGOs. Human rights conventions have not traditionally utilized 

Conferences of States Parties to the extent that other international treaties have, and 

typically they make reference to such meetings only in the context of amending the 

convention. Increasingly, international agreements make provision for periodic 

Conferences of States Parties for the purpose of assessing implementation and for 

facilitating dialogue. This mechanism has been proposed as an important component of 

monitoring and implementation for a UN Convention. 

Illustration 1 

ILO Thematic Complaints Procedure: Committee on Freedom of Association 

In 1951, after the adoption of an ILO convention on freedom of association, the ILO established 

the Committee on Freedom of Association for the purpose of examining complaints about 

violations of freedom of association, whether or not the country concerned had ratified the 

relevant conventions. This is one of the most widely used international human rights complaints 

procedures. Complaints may be brought against a member state by employers' and workers' 

organizations. The Committee is a Governing Body committee, and is composed of an 

independent chairperson and three representatives each of governments, employers, and workers. 

If it decides to receive the case, it establishes the facts in dialogue with the government 

concerned. If a violation of freedom of association standards or principles is found, it issues a 

report and makes recommendations on how the situation could be remedied. Governments are 

subsequently requested to report on the implementation of its recommendations. The Committee 

may also choose to propose a "direct contacts" mission to the government concerned to address 

the problem directly with government officials and social partners through a process of dialogue. 

In over 50 years of work, the CFA has examined over 2,300 cases. More than 60 countries have 

acted on its recommendations. 

For more on the supervisory procedure of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, see

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/norm/applying/freedom.htm. For more on the full 
8

range of ILO human rights complaints procedure, see lee Swepson, “Human Rights Complaints 

Procedures of the ILO” in Hurst Hannum, ed., Guide to International Human Rights Practice (3d 

edition, 1999). 

Illustration 2 

Technical Advisory Bodies to Support Implementation of Environmental Treaties 

A number of environmental conventions have established subsidiary bodies to undertake 

particular advisory and related roles to facilitate and support implementation. These bodies 

perform specialized functions that a treaty monitoring body alone would be unable to undertake. 

As an example, the Convention on Biological Diversity established a Subsidiary Body on 

Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice, as well as other subsidiary organs such as an 

Open Ended Working Group on Biosafety, an Expert Panel on Access and Benefit Sharing, and 

an Open Ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Article 8(j) (relating to the preservation of practices 

of indigenous and local communities relevant to biodiversity). 

c) Beyond self-reporting: “reverse reporting,” external monitoring and challenge 

inspection systems 

The traditional approach to monitoring human rights obligations through State-initiated reporting 

and review by a treaty body (committee of experts) has come under criticism by governments 

and NGOs alike in recent years. A central weakness of this system is that it relies heavily on the 

due diligence and accuracy of the reporting undertaken by government authorities. Reporting 

records in this regard are poor. Moreover, the treaty bodies are typically under-resourced and 

therefore are taxed to their limit in undertaking a thorough and meaningful review of State 

reports. Symposium participants noted that a UN Convention on the Human Rights of Persons 

with Disabilities could approach this challenge by amending reporting procedures, perhaps by 

adapting that system and requiring States to submit national disability action plans for review by 

a treaty body. Some participants also saw considerable merit in a “reverse reporting” procedure, 

utilized in many other international contexts. In particular, participants discussed the following 

issues: 

1. Consider “reverse reporting” – the Convention might approach the shortcoming of 

traditional reporting through the use of external monitoring mechanisms utilized in other 

international monitoring contexts. A “reverse reporting” system is a mechanism whereby 

a report reviewing compliance commitments is prepared by an entity other than the 

government under scrutiny, and where dialogue occurs between the reviewing body and 

the government concerned. This is often undertaken as a peer review system, as in the 

OECD. [See Illustrations 3 & 4]. The IMF Country Surveillance Mechanism adopts this 

approach whereby expert reviewers prepare reports after an in-country visit and extensive 

consultations with stakeholders. In this way, monitoring moves beyond self reporting 

and self-certification to forms of external monitoring. 

2. Targeted inspections/thematic inquiries & fact-finding – certain thematic issue areas 

might be identified for external monitoring by fact-finding teams or inspection panels 
9

(perhaps from the membership of a treaty body). Targeted inquiry/inspection procedures 

are focused; they do not try to assess compliance across the board, but set priorities for 

inspection, thereby making the process more efficient and effective. This is a process 

well-known in the context of monitoring prison conditions and the prevention of torture. 

[See Illustration 5]. External monitoring might also take the form of “challenge 

inspections” whereby a State might self-certify compliance with treaty obligations in a 

particular area (e.g., prison conditions for detainees with disabilities or conditions in 

institutions) and others, such as another States Party, NGOs, or a treaty body, could 

challenge the veracity of the report and a neutral entity conduct the inspection. 

Illustration 3

Reverse Reporting at Work: Monitoring Trade Policy and Practice by the WTO 

The World Trade Organization monitoring system reviews trade policy and practice in the WTO 

Member States. In contrast with human rights reporting procedures initiated by the preparation of 

a State report, the WTO utilizes a “reverse reporting” system with peer review under its Trade 

Policy Review Mechanism. Reviews are conducted by the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) 

on the basis of a policy statement by the Member under review and a report prepared by 

economists in the Secretariat's Trade Policy Review Division. The programme of reviews for 

each year is adopted by the TPRB by the middle of the previous calendar year. In preparing its 

report, the Secretariat seeks the cooperation of the Member, but has the sole responsibility for the 

facts presented and views expressed. 

The TPRB’s debate on the policy statement, and report prepared by the Secretariat, is stimulated 

by two discussants chosen from the membership, acting not as government representatives, but 

in their individual capacity. The reports consist of detailed chapters examining the trade policies 

and practices of the Member and describing trade policymaking institutions and the 

macroeconomic situation; these chapters are preceded by the Secretariat's Summary 

Observations, which summarize the report and presents the Secretariat's perspective on the 

Member's trade policies. The procedure concludes with the Final Remarks of the Chair, which 

are published together with the policy statement of the country under review, the report of the 

Secretariat and the minutes of the meeting. 

For more on the WTO system, see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_int_e.htm. 

Illustration 4

OECD Peer Review System 

The practice of peer review is well developed in the OECD. Peer review within the OECD refers 

to the systematic examination and assessment of the performance of a State by other States, with 

the ultimate goal of helping the reviewed State improve its policy making, adopt best practices, 

and comply with established standards and principles. Peer review may relate to economics, 

governance, education, health, environment, energy or other policies and practices. Within one 
10

or more of those subject areas, a State is examined against a wide range of standards and criteria. 

Peer review can also be carried out thematically, where several countries are examined at the 

same time with respect to a particular theme. Peer review with regard to an individual State or 

theme is typically carried out on a regular basis, with each review exercise resulting in a report 

that assesses accomplishments, spells out shortfalls, and makes recommendations. 

The OECD has used this method since its creation. All OECD peer review processes contain 

common structural elements which include: a set of principles, standards and criteria against 

which the country performance is reviewed; designated actors to carry out the peer review; and a 

set of procedures leading to the final result of the peer review. Peer review, directly or 

indirectly, can serve the following purposes: 

• Policy dialogue: during the peer review process, countries systematically exchange 

information, attitudes and views on policy decisions and their application. This dialogue 

can be the basis for further co-operation, through, for example, the adoption of new 

policy guidelines, recommendations or even the negotiation of legal undertakings; 

• Transparency: the reviewed country has the chance, in the course of a peer review, to 

present and clarify national rules, practices and procedures, and explain their rationale. 

As a result, the Secretariat is usually able to develop documentation and, in certain cases, 

a database which remains at the disposal of the Member countries, and which is also 

often made available to the public and published on the Organisation web site; 

• Capacity building: peer review is a mutual learning process in which best practices are 

exchanged. The process can therefore serve as an important capacity building instrument 

– not only for the country under review, but also for countries participating in the process 

as examiners, or simply as members of the responsible collective body; 

• Compliance: an important function of peer review is to monitor and enhance compliance 

by countries with internationally agreed policies, standards, and principles. However, 

unlike a traditional legal enforcement mechanism, peer review works as a sort of “soft 

enforcement” system, resulting in non-coercive final reports and recommendations rather 

than binding coercive acts such as sanctions. 

• For more on the peer review system in OECD, see Fabrizio Pagani, Peer Review: A Tool 

for Co-operation and Change (OECD, 2002). Available at: http://www.oecd.org. 

Illustration 5

EU Committee on Torture Inspection System 

The European Committee on the Prevention of Torture (CPT) is mandated by the European 

Convention for the Prevention of Torture to: “[B]y means of visits, examine the treatment of 

persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such 

persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 

The Convention establishes non-judicial preventive machinery to protect detainees based on a 

system of visits by the Committee. CPT members are independent and impartial experts from a 

variety of backgrounds such as law, medicine, and policing. The Committee visits places of 

detention (e.g. prisons and juvenile detention centers, police stations, holding centers for 

immigration detainees and psychiatric hospitals), to see how persons deprived of their liberty are 
11

treated and, if necessary, to recommend improvements to States. Visits are carried out by 

delegations, usually of two or more Committee members, accompanied by members of the 

Committee's Secretariat and, if necessary, by experts and interpreters. 

CPT delegations visit Contracting States periodically, but may also organize additional "ad hoc" 

visits if necessary. The Committee must notify the State concerned but need not specify the 

period between notification and the actual visit, which, in exceptional circumstances, may be 

carried out immediately after notification. Under the Convention, CPT delegations have 

unlimited access to places of detention and the right to move inside such places without 

restriction. They interview persons deprived of their liberty in private and communicate freely 

with anyone who can provide information. 

The recommendations which the CPT formulates based on its fact-finding during the visit are 

included in a report which is sent to the State concerned. This report is the starting point for an 

ongoing dialogue with the State concerned. The Committee meets in camera and its reports are 

strictly confidential. If a country fails to co-operate or refuses to improve the situation in the 

light of the Committee's recommendations, they may issue a public statement. 

For more information on the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, see 

http://www.cpt.coe.int/en 

d) Information gathering methodologies & monitoring 

A core component of both monitoring and facilitating the implementation of international 

obligations includes information gathering. In some instances, specific provisions in 

international agreements (particularly in the environmental context) require that information 

relevant to specific or general obligations be collected by States Parties. In other cases, the treaty 

monitoring body may develop, through reporting guidelines or other procedures, requirements 

for States to gather information and data relating to treaty implementation and compliance. 

Information gathering may be carried out for a variety of purposes reasons, including research or 

identifying patterns and trends, which reflect the state of the problems covered in the treaty. 

Such activities may be undertaken by States individually or jointly or by international 

organizations. Information gathering is required by States Parties in a number of international 

environmental law treaties including, for example, health of workers, carriage of oil, air quality 

of the working environment, fisheries conservation levels, marine environment, and freshwater 

resources. It should be noted that when the information is gathered (such as in a national 

census), those participating in the collection process should take all steps necessary to preserve 

the privacy of those providing information. Participants made the following observations 

relating to information gathering methodologies and monitoring: 

1. Encourage governments to collect their own internal data on disability – while a 

specific article on disability statistics and data collection is important to include on the 

UN Convention, such information is relevant not only for treaty implementation but also 

for treaty monitoring. Appropriate data collection provides an important tool for the 

assessment of treaty compliance. If governments are already collecting data, they will be 

in a much better position to monitor their own domestic implementation, and 
12

international efforts at monitoring will also be supported. (The Washington Group on 

Disability Statistics was cited as an example of a group currently helping to develop 

common indicators and data guidelines/methodologies that countries may find useful. 

For more on this group see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/citygroup.htm) 

2. Indicators/time-bound benchmarks essential – there is a need for indicators to allow 

both cross country comparison, and also to chart progress of States Parties’ 

implementation. Indicators are more meaningful if they constitute a mix of both 

qualitative and quantitative indicators. A caveat here noted by some participants is that 

even if indicators are used, there is still a need to be flexible, so that the indicators do not 

inhibit a monitoring body’s ability to conduct individualized examinations of compliance. 

e) National plans of action 

National action plans can serve as an anchor for monitoring compliance with obligations set forth 

in a UN Convention of the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities. [See Illustrations 6 & 

7]. The process by which national action plans are developed triggers governments to think of 

how they will implement, and what priorities they have given their own situation (e.g., 

developing countries, countries with federal/provincial system, countries looking to 

progressively realize economic, social and cultural rights.) Not only can the development of 

national action plans be the subject of monitoring, completed plans can provide guidance for a 

treaty monitoring body in the individualized examination of treaty implementation by a States 

Party. Participants observed the following with regard to national plans of action: 

1. Develop NAPs in consultation with disabled people – national action plans must be 

developed with meaningful consultation with key stakeholders, and most importantly 

with disabled people’s organizations. 

2. NAPs should include benchmarking and indicators – national plans of action should 

establish comprehensive, time-bound benchmarks or indicators for monitoring. They 

should include sources of financing, in addition to assessments of laws implemented 

successfully and unsuccessfully. They should also include information on which 

benchmarks have been met, which indicators are an appropriate and accurate measure of 

success, best practices, and lessons learned. 

3. Link NAPs to law-making and budgetary processes – national action plans should be 

linked clearly with national law and policy-making processes, including, as appropriate, 

the use of budgetary resources. National action plans processes are also important tools 

for integrating disability into all policy areas. International monitoring of national action 

plans should monitor the development and content of the plan, and use its content as a 

basis and benchmark for review. 
13

Illustration 6

The Beijing Platform for Action System of Monitoring National Action Plans 

The Beijing Platform for Action, in paragraph 297, calls on all governments to develop 

implementation strategies or national plans of action for the Platform. The Division for the 

Advancement of Women asked all UN Members States to supply copies of these strategies/plans 

of action. The UN reviews national actions plans submitted in response to the requirement and 

provides a comprehensive analysis of where states are with respect to implementing the Beijing 

Platform of Action. The report analyzes whether national action plans have followed the 

recommendation set forth in the Beijing Platform, concerning national action plan preparation, 

content, action defined and resources allocated. Particular attention in the report is geared to 

assessing benchmarks and targets established under critical areas of action (e.g., violence against 

women, education of women, women in poverty). Innovative approaches are also indicated in 

the report. 

For more on monitoring Beijing Platform National Action Plans, see 

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/country/national/natplans.htm. 

Illustration 7

European National Action Plans against Poverty and Social Exclusion 

European Union Member States are required to submit National Action Plans against poverty 

and social exclusion, in response to the common objectives on poverty and social exclusion. In 

these plans, every Member State presents its priorities and efforts for a two year period. The 

plans allow for the diversity of situations and policy priorities at national level, but are developed 

within the framework of a common outline to ensure some degree of coherence in order to 

facilitate their use in a process of mutual learning. The NAPs provide an opportunity for (i) the 

assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of policy instruments in light of the common 

objectives relating to poverty and social exclusion; (ii) how Member States’ policies and actions, 

whether at national, regional or local level, will be further strengthened so as to meet objectives; 

and (iii) what specific and concrete changes or additions are proposed to existing policies or 

programmes or what new initiatives are planned in order to address identified problems and 

weaknesses. 

For a copy of the common outline required for submission of the National Action Plan for the 

European Employment Strategy against Poverty and Social Exclusion, see: 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/commonoutline2003final_en.pdf 
14

ii) Measures to support implementation – “implementation facilitators” 

Monitoring human rights abuses relies on more confrontational compliance mechanisms, 

associated with the scrutiny of State reports, individual/group and inter-State communications 

procedures and inquiry/inspection procedures. Beyond the more adversarial forms of ensuring 

compliance and enforcement of human rights treaty obligations, are measures of a more 

cooperative character, referred to here as “implementation facilitators” or measures to support 

the implementation of human rights obligations. 

a) Public awareness and capacity building 

Public education and awareness and capacity building are understood as vital preconditions to 

realizing the goals of a UN Convention on Disability Rights. Public education and awareness 

about disability is crucial in order to address stereotypes and prejudices against people with 

disabilities and for members of society to understand and appreciate the human rights to which 

people with disabilities are entitled. International treaties frequently require States Parties to 

improve public awareness and education in a given area. This is particularly true for 

international environmental agreements, though other treaties similarly give attention to public 

awareness and education. Training, which is slightly more specific, features in some 

international treaties on topics such as the protection of workers. 

Participants noted the relevance of public awareness and capacity building with respect to 

monitoring in the following areas: 

1. Awareness of monitoring mechanisms – participants noted that if the monitoring 

mechanisms are to be effectively utilized by civil society, members of the public and 

States Parties, all stakeholders must be made aware of the existence and mandate of the 

monitoring mechanism, and how they may best engage it. 

2. Capacity to engage – participants focused much of their discussion in this area on the 

need for all stakeholders to have sufficient capacity to engage all aspects of the 

monitoring system. In particular, participants noted the need for technical assistance and, 

where necessary, training, to ensure both effective and efficient engagement in 

monitoring by various stakeholders. 

b) Financial mechanisms to support treaty implementation 

The effective implementation of a UN Convention on the Human Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities will not be achieved absent appropriate financial supports. While many of the treaty 

obligations may indeed be readily implemented without an extensive outlay of resources, the 

comprehensive nature of the treaty, coupled with the undeveloped state of disability laws and 

policies in the vast majority of countries around the world, will require financial resources. 

There are various approaches to the issue of ensuring financial support for the ongoing 

implementation of the UN Convention, which may include the establishment of new financial 

mechanisms or the engagement of existing ones. In the international environmental realm, there 

is recognition that the development of environmental rules and standards, and the provision of 
15

financial resources to ensure their implementation by all (especially developing countries), 

cannot be ignored. A number of funds have been established, often within the framework of 

international environmental conventions, to further environmental protection goals, most 

typically on a voluntary basis. Some participants noted that the development of a financial 

mechanism, perhaps in the form of a voluntary fund, could help foster technical assistance 

geared toward treaty implementation. It might also bolster the funding of monitoring 

mechanisms. In this regard the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) was cited by some 

participants as a useful model for further examination. [See Illustration 8]. In addition, a study 

submitted to the Conference of States Parties to the Rotterdam Convention is currently available, 

which provides an assessment of “Possible Options for the Establishment of a Financial 

Mechanism for the Implementation of the Rotterdam Convention.” The study is currently 

available at: http://www.ciel.org/Publications/RotterdamStudy_Secretariat_May2005.pdf 

Illustration 8

Global Environmental Facility 

The Global Environmental Facility was established in 1991 by the World Bank, the UN 

Environmental Programme, and the UN Development Programme. The main function of the 

GEF is to provide funds to help developing countries meet incremental costs of 

environmental protection measures relating to climate change, biological diversity, 

international waters, ozone layer depletion and persistent organic pollutants. It also serves as 

the financial mechanism for four international environmental treaties, and thus helps fund 

initiatives that assist developing countries in meeting the objectives of the conventions. The 

GEF is an important mechanism that facilitates the participation of developing countries in 

global environmental policies and in international environmental conventions, and facilitates 

implementation through capacity-building. Since 1991, the GEF has provided $4.5 billion in 

grants and generated $14.5 billion in co-financing from other partners for projects in 

developing countries and countries with economies in transition. GEF Member Countries 

include developing and developed countries, as well as those with economies in transition. 

The GEF Council is the main governing body of the GEF, comprised of 32 Member 

Countries. All GEF full-size projects must be approved by the Council. The GEF Assembly, 

comprised of all member countries, meets once every four years to review policies and 

operations. A Secretariat serves and reports to the Assembly and Council and coordinates 

the implementation of GEF activities. NGOs participate in the GEF activities and assist in 

the design, execution, and monitoring of projects. Ten slots at GEF Council meetings are 

reserved for NGOs, and NGOs themselves have the responsibility of choosing their 

representatives. A Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) provides objective 

scientific and technical advice to the GEF. 

For more information on the Global Environmental Facility, see http://www.gefweb.org/. 
16

iii) Roles of key stakeholders in monitoring and implementation 

a) The role of governments in monitoring & implementation processes

Governments, and in particular States Parties, clearly have a central role to play in monitoring, as 

it is their action or inaction on treaty compliance that is the focus of the monitoring process. In 

examining the role of governments, and how governments are engaged by monitoring and 

implementation mechanisms, the participants noted the following: 

1. Benefits of government participation – there is a need to better highlight the benefits to 

governments of participating in monitoring. For example, activities such as reporting or 

responding to informational requests of monitoring bodies can provide States with an 

opportunity to enhance coordination and collaboration both between government 

departments and with civil society. In turn, such enhanced coordination and 

collaboration can positively impact the effectiveness with which States implement their 

treaty obligations. 

2. Monitoring outcomes – the monitoring process should facilitate production of more 

constructive feedback, showing governments not only what they have not done, but how 

they could do things better (i.e. good practices). Also, more information should be 

provided regarding the economic and social costs already borne by States Parties as a 

result of noncompliance. 

3. Developing country participation – there is a need to ensure that developing countries 

are not disadvantaged when they participate in monitoring mechanisms. In some 

instances there is a need to build capacity to enable developing countries to participate 

meaningfully, and ensure not only the efficacy of the monitoring process, but also the 

efficient use of scarce developing country resources. 

4. Engage all relevant government entities – it was noted that monitoring mechanisms 

have not historically engaged/ had access to all relevant government entities of States 

Parties, which in turn negatively impacts both the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

monitoring process. This is particularly important regarding States Parties with federal 

systems where governmental responsibilities may be spread throughout a wide system. 

5. Focus on continuous improvement – some participants noted the need to strive for 

continuous improvement and implementation, which can be sought regardless of where 

States Parties’ Need to ensure that monitoring focuses on continued improvement and 

implementation, no matter where the States Party’s ‘starting point’ is. 

6. Noninterference – a number of participants noted the need to ensure that countries do 

not negatively impact the ability of other countries to comply with their treaty 

obligations. The scope of the monitoring mechanism should thus include not only a 

States Party’s degree of compliance and how it can do better, but also the degree to which 

its policies and practices support or counteract the ability of other countries to fulfill their 

respective obligations. 

b) The role of NGOs in monitoring and implementation

The participation of non-state actors is sometimes provided for in the text of the treaty itself. It 

is now standard practice for international agreements to provide for the participation of relevant 
17

NGOs, for example as observers in meetings of relevant treaty monitoring bodies, and in 

meetings of States Parties. In some instances NGOs have been given tasks by monitoring bodies 

to participate in data gathering and monitoring activities. Given the pattern of exclusion 

experienced by people with disabilities in decision-making processes at both the national and 

international level, the participation of people with disabilities and their representative 

organizations in any institutions and mechanisms created by an international convention on the 

rights of people with disabilities will be essential. The Convention on the Rights of the Child 

provides one good example in the human rights context. There are other examples of provisions 

allowing for the participation of NGOs in the environmental, as well as other contexts. The 

participants noted in particular: 

1. The critical role of NGOs – especially as a source of information. There is a need to 

ensure that the monitoring process is accessible, not just in terms of disability 

accommodations, but that NGOs are adequately informed and have knowledge of the 

monitoring process and capacity to meaningfully engage it. 

2. Non-traditional roles for NGOs – there is a need to consider non-traditional roles for 

NGOs regarding the monitoring of this convention. In the human rights context, NGOs 

have often been viewed as being on the “other side” and necessarily in opposition to 

States Parties. However, in some arms control and environmental contexts NGOs have 

been utilized as neutral parties and charged with specific roles in information gathering 

and assessment. It was suggested by some that similar roles be explored in the context of 

monitoring this convention. [See Illustration 9].

3. NGO focus – there was some concern expressed that whilst NGOs are an essential 

component in an effective monitoring mechanism, yet care should be taken to ensure that 

the monitoring mechanism does not unduly narrow the broad roles that NGOs must play 

in implementation; their role extends beyond monitoring and reporting on violations and 

NGOs need to contribute according to their capacities and the priorities of their 

constituents. In other words, NGOs, and in particular DPOs, should be able to 

productively engage the monitoring mechanism as a complement to their existing work, 

rather than having to deal with monitoring as an unhelpful distraction. 

Illustration 9 

Environmental NGOs and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species (CITES) 

The role of NGOs has been central to the monitoring successes of the CITES convention. 

The CITES Secretariat has entered into a number of agreements with NGOs according to 

which NGOs perform important roles relating to monitoring and implementation. 

For example, the CITES Secretariat entered into a memoranda of understanding with the 

ICUN – the World Conservation Union - in which it named IUCN as a major technical 

advisor to the Convention and identified a number of tasks to be undertaken by IUCN for the 

CITES Secretariat. These include: (i) the provision of scientific information; (ii) the 

development and implementation of field projects, including – a system for monitoring of 

illegal killing of elephants; (iii) assistance with training activities, including the development 

of training materials and workshops as appropriate and in conjunction with other relevant 
18

organizations; (iv) scientific and technical advisory role, including technical assistance to 

support States Parties in implementation of the Convention; and (v) serving a facilitation 

role, including arranging dialogue with States Parties and liaison with other conservation 

conventions and organizations. Data collection for the purposes of monitoring trade in 

endangered species of wild flora and fauna are collected by the Wildlife Trade Monitoring 

Unit (WTMU). The WTMU receives data from governmental as well as non-governmental 

sources. This information is utilized by the CITES Secretariat in order to identify 

compliance problems and to take measures where data points to gaps. 

c) The Role of other relevant stakeholders in monitoring and implementation

Ensuring the effective monitoring and implementation of human rights obligations requires the 

engagement of a wide range of stakeholders. Global treaties recently negotiated by the 

international community give explicit recognition to the role that a range of key stakeholders 

play in ensuring the success of the treaty. Thus, international environmental treaties address the 

challenge of coordination and the necessity of full participation among a full range of relevant 

actors. Ensuring the effective monitoring and implementation of a UN Convention on the 

Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities will require the coordination and participation, not 

only of governments and disabled people’s organizations, but also of other key actors such as 

international and regional development institutions, the United Nations and its respective 

agencies and so forth. 

International development organizations have not typically been associated with the monitoring 

and implementation of human rights treaties. However, given that some 80% of the global 

population of disabled persons live in the developing world and most of these people live in 

poverty, the role of development institutions is fundamental to realizing the full range of rights to 

be articulated by the UN Convention on the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As 

regards international development organizations and other actors, the participants noted: 

1. Need to include full range of stakeholders – international development organizations, 

UN agencies, and other entities (e.g. private foundations), should be brought in to the 

monitoring process. They can be an invaluable source of useful data and helpful 

indicators (which many of them already have a mandate to collect), and good practices. 

In addition, the treaty monitoring mechanism can be a source of information that will 

ensure that the work of these various stakeholders usefully complements and supports the 

treaty’s implementation. 

2. Importance of international cooperation – several participants noted the utility of 

international cooperation as a mechanism to bring all relevant stakeholders together and 

share good practices, relevant information etc. The monitoring mechanism has the 

potential to provide one forum in which such cooperation may usefully occur. 
19

ANNEX 1 - Symposium Agenda 

• Welcome – Kathleen Martinez, U.S. National Council on Disability 

• Introductions 

• Presentation, “Monitoring in the context of the disability treaty negotiations and ongoing 

human rights treaty body reform process” – Katherine Guernsey & Janet Lord 

• Presentation of a governmental perspective on monitoring, “Holistic approach to 

monitoring and implementation mechanisms of the envisaged convention on the rights 

and dignity of persons with disabilities” – Ambassador H. E. Luis Gallegos 

• Facilitated Structured Dialogue 

ANNEX 2 -Useful Resources

The following links were provided to the participants, and are included here for those who may 

similarly find them useful: 

Official website of the UN Ad Hoc Committee: 

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/

Link to Chair’s Text (latest draft text for the convention): 

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/documents/chairtext.doc

Link to Covering Letter for Chair’s Text: 

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/documents/coveringletter.doc

Study by Gerard Quinn and Theresia Degener, Commissioned by the Office of the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights: "Human Rights and Disability: The Current Use and Future 

Potential of United Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability”

http://www.unhchr.ch/disability/study.htm

National Human Rights Institutions draft text on monitoring submitted to the sixth session of the 

Ad Hoc Committee: 

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6nhri25.doc 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights homepage on treaty body reform process: 

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/treaty/reform.htm 

Israel draft text on monitoring submitted to the sixth session of the Ad Hoc Committee (at 

bottom of page): 

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6israel.htm

Mexican draft treaty proposal submitted to the first session of the Ad Hoc Committee (latter 

articles address monitoring): 

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/adhocmeetaac265w1e.htm 
20

National Council on Disability homepage: 

http://www.ncd.gov

Mental Disability Rights International homepage: 

http://www.mdri.org

ANNEX 3 - List of Participants

Rapporteurs: 

Alison Long – American University 

Lindsey Barna – American University 

Attendees: 

Joelle Balfe – Consultant, Human Rights and Disability 

Chris Camponovo – U.S. Department of State 

Charles E. Di Leva – The World Bank Group 

Robert Dinerstein – American University 

Katherine Dorsey – Centre for International Rehabilitation 

Joan Durocher – U.S. National Council on Disability 

Ambassador H. E. Luis Gallegos – Embassy of Ecuador to the United States 

Kathy Guernsey – American University (facilitator) 

Leah Harris – American University 

Anne Hayes – Center for International Rehabilitation 

Sarah Jakiel – American University 

Janet E. Lord – American University (facilitator) 

Daniel Magraw – Center for International Environmental Law 

Kathleen Martinez – U.S. National Council on Disability 

Julie Mertus – American University 

Marco Nicoli – The World Bank Group 

Mariana Olivera-West – Mission of Mexico to the United Nations 

Jeff Rosen – U.S. National Council on Disability 

Eric Rosenthal – Mental Disability Rights International 

Zhanna Son – Landmine Survivors Network 

Michael Stein – Harvard University 

Jeff Walker – BlueForce LLC 

Amy Wilson – Gallaudet University 

ANNEX 4 - Organizational Bios 

Co-Sponsoring Organizations 

The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency with 15 members appointed 

by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The overall purpose of 

NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal 
21

opportunity for all individuals with disabilities regardless of the nature or significance of the 

disability and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, 

independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society. Over the past few 

years, the National Council on Disability has released several documents and reports related to 

the development of a UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities. They can be found 

at www.ncd.gov in the publications section or at the following links: 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2002/unwhitepaper_05-23-02.htm

(Understanding the Role of an International Convention on the Human Rights of People with 

Disabilities) 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2002/understanding_7-30-02.htm

Understanding the Potential Content and Structure of an International Convention on the Human 

Rights of People with Disabilities) 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2002/outreach_tool.htm

(An Education and Outreach Tool for the US Disability Community on the Convention) 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/history_process.htm

(A History of the Process—UN Convention) 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/unconvention.htm

(Update on the 3rd Ad Hoc Committee Meeting) 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/unadhoc.htm

(Update on the 4th Ad Hoc Committee Meeting) 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/fifth_session.htm

(Update on the 5th Ad Hoc Committee Meeting) 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/convention_update.htm

(Update on the 6th Ad Hoc Committee Meeting) 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/alltheseries.htm

(A series of papers on the US disability law experience with respect to several articles on the 

agenda during the 6th Ad Hoc Committee Meeting) 
22

American University Program in Ethics, Peace and Global Affairs 

The Master of Arts in Ethics, Peace, and Global Affairs at American University offers an ethical 

response to contemporary global problems. This interdisciplinary program, offered jointly by 

International Peace and Conflict Resolution in the School of International Service and the 

Department of Philosophy and Religion in the College of Arts and Sciences, prepares students 

broadly in the practical application of ethical theory and policy analysis to difficult ethical 

choices in global affairs, and specifically to the dynamics of war, peace, and conflict resolution. 

For more information, see: 

http://www.american.edu/sis/academics/graduateprograms/ma/epga.htm 

American University/Amnesty International Summer Human Rights Institute: Human Rights in 

the 21st Century 

Human Rights in the 21st Century is a collaboration between Amnesty International USA and 

American University. The Institute offers a series of leadership development courses for 

emerging human rights scholars and activists, unique in its scope and the opportunities offered to 

participants. It also provides a forum throughout the year for dialogue and debate on 

contemporary issues in international human rights. In 2005, the Summer Institute will continue 

to address latest developments in human rights law and practice, including on-going UN 

negotiations to draft a convention on the human rights of people with disabilities, the intersection 

of human rights and conflict, and issues of NGO accountability and legitimacy. The Institute 

offerings will provide students with the knowledge, skills, applied experiences, and professional 

opportunities to address the new human rights challenges of the global era. Students may earn a 

certificate of achievement in the Study of Global Human Rights upon completion of nine credits. 

For more information, see: http://www.american.edu/sis/humanrights/index.html

Mental Disability Rights International 

Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) is an advocacy organization dedicated to the 

human rights and full participation in society of people with mental disabilities worldwide. 

MDRI documents human rights abuses, supports the development of mental disability rights 

advocacy, and promotes international awareness and oversight of the rights of people with 

mental disabilities. MDRI advises governments and non-governmental organizations to plan 

strategies to bring about effective rights enforcement and service system reform. Drawing on the 

skills and experience of attorneys, mental health professionals, and people with disabilities and 

their families, MDRI challenges the discrimination and abuse faced by people with mental 

disabilities worldwide. 

MDRI is based in Washington, DC with a European Regional office in London, United 

Kingdom. MDRI also has an office in Prishtina, Kosovo. MDRI has investigated human rights 

conditions and assisted mental disability rights advocates in Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kosovo, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mexico, 

Paraguay, Poland, Peru, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine, and 

Uruguay. MDRI has published the following reports: Human Rights & Mental Health: Peru

(2004); Not on the Agenda: Human Rights of People with Mental Disabilities in Kosovo (2002); 
23

Human Rights & Mental Health: Mexico (2000); Children in Russia’s Institutions: Human 

Rights and Opportunities for Reform (2000); Human Rights & Mental Health: Hungary (1997); 

Human Rights & Mental Health: Uruguay (1995). On behalf of the US National Council on 

Disability (NCD), MDRI Executive Director Eric Rosenthal co-authored the 2003 report US 

Foreign Policy & Disability. For access to these reports and other information about the work 

of MDRI, see http://www.mdri.org.