Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Seven teenth session

Summary record of the 312th meeting

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Wednesday, 29 March 2017, at 3 p.m.

Chair:Ms.Degener

Contents

Consideration of reports submitted by parties to the Convention under article 35 (continued)

Initial report of Armenia

The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m.

Consideration of reports submitted by parties to the Convention under article 35 (continued)

Initial report of Armenia (CRPD/C/ARM/1; CRPD/C/ARM/Q/1 and Add.1)

At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of Armenia took places at the Committee table.

Mr. Kocharyan (Armenia), introducing his country’s initial report (CRPD/C/ARM/1), said that Armenia had made a commitment to ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities by ratifying the Convention in 2010. That commitment had informed the range of measures that been taken by the Government in recent years. The problems that remained, which the Government had made considerable efforts to overcome, were largely due to the country’s limited means.

A number of laws had been adopted or amended to bring Armenian legislation into line with the Convention. That process, which was ongoing, had included the drafting of a bill on the protection of the rights and social inclusion of persons with disabilities. The bill contained a definition of disability that was compatible with the Convention and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. It addressed such issues as accessibility, education, employment, health care and the conditions necessary to ensuring the equal participation in social life of persons with disabilities. It also provided for the establishment of a monitoring mechanism. The groundwork for a human rights approach to disability had therefore been laid. The bill, which was currently before the National Assembly, was expected to become law in the near future.

In addition to the bill, there were a number of legal provisions designed to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. Quotas for the employment of persons with disabilities had been introduced in the Employment Act of 2013. Under that Act, persons with disabilities could also register as job seekers, a status that entitled them to job training and help with finding work.

The Government had revised the criteria by which disability determinations were made. In accordance with its new model, a person’s disability status was determined after a comprehensive assessment of his or her needs and activities. In 2015 and 2016, in cooperation with the United Nations Partnership to Promote the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and persons with disabilities themselves, the new model had been tested and, starting in 2017, it would apply, on a pilot basis, to all first-time seekers of disability status.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, in partnership with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), had identified the organizations providing services to persons with disabilities in Armenia and set up an online information system for use by persons with disabilities, policymakers, social workers and persons involved in social assistance networks. In several cases, the Ministry had also delegated the provision of social services to organizations of and for persons with disabilities.

To promote greater public awareness of disability issues, 2016 had been designated by the Government as the “year of equal opportunities for persons with disabilities”. In addition, the Government had adopted the Comprehensive Programme on the Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities for the period 2017 to 2021, which included a number of measures designed to make urban environments more accessible.

Most Convention rights were enshrined either in the bill on the protection of the rights and social inclusion of persons with disabilities or in a number of relevant laws. A recently adopted act on motor transport, for instance, stated that vehicles used to provide public passenger service should be equipped to transport persons with disabilities and, in late 2014, the National Assembly had amended the General Education Act to strengthen the right to education of children with disabilities, including in mainstream schools. In accordance with the amended Act, 15 special schools were to be converted into regional centres for learning and psychological support. The transition to an inclusive educational system was being made with the support of a number of international partners.

Measures had also been taken with a view to bringing practices in the health-care sector into line with the Convention. The Ministry of Health, for instance, had proposed amendments to the Psychiatric Care Act that addressed a number of issues relating to the status of persons with psychosocial disabilities.

The Government’s efforts to implement the Convention were made in close cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), whose members took part in the work of the National Commission for Persons with Disabilities on an equal footing with representatives of the State. Persons with disabilities were on the electoral lists of every political party vying for seats in the National Assembly in the country’s forthcoming parliamentary elections and work was being done to make voting easier for blind persons.

The Government understood the importance of making steady progress and was well aware that there was still much work to be done. It trusted that the dialogue with the Committee would have a positive impact on its efforts to implement the Convention.

Mr. Ruškus (Country Rapporteur) said that, while the State party had made commendable efforts to ensure that persons with disabilities under its jurisdiction could exercise their rights, considerable progress still had to be made if such persons were ever to be able to enjoy their right to lead their lives on an equal basis with others. The drafting of the bill on the protection of the rights and social inclusion of persons with disabilities was a generally positive development, but, like the country’s Constitution, it contained a number of provisions that were contrary to the Convention. Both the bill and the Constitution appeared to emphasize the prevention and treatment of disability, while simultaneously downplaying the role played by the interaction of impairments and social barriers. Despite a number of recent amendments to the Constitution, constitutional provisions for legal incapacity and guardianship regimes remained in place.

In addition to those concerns, in Armenia, disability was understood primarily as a medical issue. That understanding prevailed not only in official procedures for determining disability but also among the public at large, including leading politicians and specialists who worked with persons with disabilities. The absence of policies designed to protect women and girls with disabilities from gender-based violence was also troubling.

Some 500 children with disabilities still lived in orphanages in the State party, where they were at risk of abuse, exploitation and trafficking. As a result of the medical approach to disability, it was not uncommon for medical personnel to encourage the parents of children with disabilities to leave their children in institutional care. There was no strategy for deinstitutionalizing such children. Armenia was in urgent need of measures, including the development of foster care, to support and empower the families of children with disabilities.

A lack of awareness by decision makers, a lack of adequate funding and a failure to consult civil society risked seriously undermining plans to return the hundreds of persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities living in institutions to the community. The deinstitutionalization of persons with disabilities was an integral part of the human rights approach to disability, as was the restoration of their legal capacity. It appeared, however, that the Government had no plans to repeal the State party’s legal incapacity and guardianship provisions. Furthermore, there was no official count of the number of persons with disabilities who had been deprived of their legal capacity or whose legal capacity had been restored after a Constitutional Court ruling of 2015 that had recognized their right to petition for such restoration. In the light of those concerns, it would be interesting to learn what plans had been made to change policies, legislation and practices in such a way as to enable persons with disabilities in Armenia to receive the support they needed to lead independent and decent lives on an equal basis with others.

Articles 1-10

Mr. Chaker said that he would welcome a description of the accessibility situation in Armenia. He wondered what happened when accessibility requirements were disregarded. Were penalties imposed?

Mr. Tatić said that he wished to know what practical steps a person with a disability could take to seek a remedy for any disability-based discrimination that he or she had faced. He asked whether the authorities had any data on court cases involving alleged breaches of a person’s right not to be subjected to discrimination on grounds of disability and whether the bill on the protection of the rights and social inclusion of persons with disabilities would make denial of reasonable accommodation a prohibited act of discrimination. It would also be interesting to know whether any provisions of Armenian law addressed the intersectional forms of discrimination often faced by persons with disabilities, in particular women and girls.

Regarding article 9, he asked whether architects, engineers and designers in Armenia studied accessibility and universal design as part of their professional training. He wondered whether any buses had been purchased by transit authorities since the recent adoption of the Motor Transport Act and, if so, whether they were accessible to passengers with disabilities. As he himself was a wheelchair user, he wished to know how he would be helped to debark the aircraft were he to fly to Yerevan, whether there were any buses or taxies that he could enter without leaving his wheelchair and whether the city’s hotels and government buildings were accessible.

Mr. Rukhledev, stressing the importance of ensuring that persons with sensory impairments had access to information, said that he would welcome information on the status of sign language in Armenia. He wished to know whether the State party had a public programme for training sign language interpreters, how many such interpreters provided services in the State party and what its annual budget was for initiatives to help persons with disabilities gain access to the Internet and other information and communication technologies.

Mr. Langvad said that he would welcome information about the State party’s efforts to involve persons with disabilities of all kinds in decision-making processes. It would be especially interesting to know how they had been involved in the process of amending the Constitution.

He asked what direct efforts the Government made to help organizations of and for persons with disabilities not simply by delegating the management of relevant projects to them but also by providing them with resources to help defray administrative and other operating expenses. He asked what steps were being taken to ensure that accessibility requirements were met when buildings were built or renovated and when vehicles for public transport were purchased. Access to employment was of little use if there was no way to get to and from work. He wondered how many mainstream schools were accessible not only to wheelchair users but also to persons with visual impairments or learning disabilities.

Mr. Parra Dussan asked what plans the Government had made to remove provisions contrary to the Convention from the bill on the protection of the rights and social inclusion of persons with disabilities. In addition, he wished to know exactly which legal provisions should be repealed in order to bring the State party’s legislation into line with the Convention.

Turning to article 9, he wondered how accessible government web pages were to persons with visual impairments and whether government agencies were required to abide by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. It would be particularly interesting to know, for example, whether screen readers were available to blind Internet users.

Mr. Basharu said that he would welcome information on the involvement of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in the preparation of the State party’s initial report, which appeared to have been drafted largely by government officials or organizations close to the Government. He would also welcome information on the measures taken by the State party to prevent violence against women and girls with disabilities in the home, combat the trafficking of such women and girls, provide them with support services in shelters and facilitate their full inclusion in society.

He wondered whether the delegation could comment on the participation of persons with disabilities in the country’s campaigns to raise awareness of disability issues. It would be interesting to know what role the media played in fostering the creation of an environment conducive to the inclusion of persons with disabilities in Armenian society and what measures had been taken to rectify the failure to ensure the accessibility of information and communication systems in newly redeveloped Yerevan.

Mr. Ishikawa asked whether he had understood correctly that the State party had not adopted a law specifically prohibiting discrimination on grounds of disability and, if so, how it intended to ensure that persons with disabilities could exercise their right to reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Martin asked whether the State party had taken any steps to raise awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities and whether persons with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, were involved in awareness-raising or training efforts.

Mr. Buntan said that he wished to know whether the State party intended to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention and, if so, when. In addition, he wondered how the State party reconciled awareness-raising campaigns that attempted to portray persons with disabilities in a positive light and legal provisions whose effect was to stress the importance of preventing disability. In connection with article 9, he asked whether Armenia had awarded government contracts in such a way as to enhance the accessibility of physical infrastructure and ensure widespread availability of assistive technologies.

Mr. You Liang said that the authorities of the State party should bear in mind that resource limitations were not necessarily the greatest obstacle to the implementation of the Convention. The Committee considered not only the progress that a State party had made but also the situation of persons with disabilities relative to that of persons without disabilities. In connection with public awareness, he asked how the State party had familiarized students, university students in particular, with the Convention and whether its contents could be made a regular subject of study in the mainstream educational system.

Mr. Kabue said that he would welcome information on the involvement of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in the formulation of the commendable laws that Armenia had adopted to bring its legislation into line with the Convention. An indication of the general availability of assistive devices to enable persons with sight and hearing impairments to access information online would also be welcome.

Mr. Pyaneandee said that he would appreciate clarification of how the definition and certification of disability were addressed in the bill on the protection of the rights and social inclusion of persons with disabilities. In addition, he wished to know how much money, as a percentage of gross domestic product, would be set aside for the implementation of the provisions of the bill once it became law and what steps would be taken to involve the representative organizations of persons with disabilities in the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the Convention.

The Chair said that she wished to know why the Government had disregarded the recommendations that a number of organizations of and for persons with disabilities had made concerning the wording of the constitutional amendments approved by referendum in late 2016, which had an undesirable focus on disability prevention. In addition, she wondered whether Armenia had any policies or plans to ensure equal opportunities for women and girls with disabilities.

Mr. Ruškus asked what plans had been made to deinstitutionalize children with disabilities on an equal basis with other children.

The meeting was suspended at 4.05 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.

Mr. Kocharyan (Armenia) said that there seemed to be a slight misunderstanding about the bill on the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. The goal of the bill’s drafters had been to ensure that it was in line with the Convention. In addition, work on some of the bill’s provisions, which could be guided by the present dialogue, was still under way.

The questions about disability prevention also appeared to be the result of a possible misunderstanding. The constitutional provisions in question pertained to the role of the State in preventing disasters or workplace accidents that could cause physical harm. The prevention of disability was not addressed by the constitutional provisions on the rights of persons with disabilities or by the bill.

The Government did not consider that the prevention of discrimination against persons with disabilities was the primary focus of the new law, since it was preparing a separate anti-discrimination law, due to be adopted in 2017, that would ban disability-based discrimination and establish preventive mechanisms, including judicial measures and provisions related to the burden of proof. Special attention would be given to preventing discrimination in housing.

Ms. Martirosyan (Armenia) said that in January 2017 the Government had approved the Comprehensive Programme on the Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities for the period 2017-2021, along with an action plan for its implementation. Under the Programme, the Government would develop indicators to assess the accessibility of all buildings. On that basis, a plan would be implemented to make buildings and roads accessible for persons with disabilities within a given time frame. Other provisions set targets for accessible transport for persons with disabilities. Moreover, since 2016, the State Urban Development Committee had been cooperating with international organizations to deliver training in universal design for specialists in urban development.

The Government was undertaking a raft of reforms to protect the rights of children with disabilities, with a strong emphasis on deinstitutionalization. It was also cooperating with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNICEF and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on a reform to establish alternative family- and community-based services for children, particularly those with special needs, and to enhance the foster care system in the country. The first alternative facility based on the new legislation was already operational, while six residential institutions had been earmarked for renovation in order to provide alternative services. International best practice and United Nations guidelines, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child, had been taken into account in developing the new legislative framework. The main services to be provided at the new centres would be the rehabilitation of children with disabilities and the training of family members responsible for their care. The Government was also developing manuals and documents to train foster parents and families in caring for children with disabilities.

The Government’s draft strategy on equal rights and opportunities for women and men for the period 2017-2021 had been drawn up and included a substantial section on women and girls with disabilities, covering topics such as employment, inclusive society and discrimination.

Significant progress had been achieved with regard to the accessibility of information and communications technologies. In 2016, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs had mapped all the services available to persons with different disabilities and published the results on an accessible web page to assist users, including persons with visual impairments, in locating relevant services in their area. The Government was committed to further improving the accessibility of the web page.

Armenia had a National Commission for Persons with Disabilities in which all the relevant NGOs participated and which engaged in comprehensive discussions of all national legislation affecting persons with disabilities. Moreover, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs had embarked on a reform of its integrated social services and established a social network, in cooperation with civil society organizations, that covered all social issues, including disability issues. All NGOs were welcome to participate in that platform, which had already yielded positive results. The Government also funded NGOs that provided social services for persons with disabilities, in some cases covering their administrative costs. As part of its efforts to build capacity and develop those services, the Government was introducing case managers in institutions and had developed special training modules and curricula for case managers and NGOs working with persons with disabilities and their families. The new bill on the protection of the rights and social inclusion of persons with disabilities, which had passed its second reading in the National Assembly, had also been extensively discussed with NGOs and would give human rights defenders the right to monitor and evaluate accessibility and the implementation of the law.

A range of public awareness-raising campaigns had been launched. Special television programmes were broadcast in relation to social matters, including disability, and the Ministry frequently disseminated information on legislative changes through articles, press conferences and press releases.

Lastly, she said that ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention was on the Government’s agenda, but that it planned to hold extensive discussions with civil society organizations and pass certain legislative amendments before addressing the matter.

Mr. Stepanyan (Armenia) said that, until 2014, the Government’s main strategy for promoting inclusive education had been to expand the number of inclusive schools where children with special educational needs could study alongside their peers. In 2014, the Government had made amendments to the Education Act and aimed to complete the transition to full inclusive education — already established in one region — throughout the country by 2021. Since that presented the challenge of retraining teachers in inclusive education and new methodologies, a special two-week teacher training module had been developed and was taught by specially qualified trainers; on completion participants went on to train their colleagues. Workshops were held for parents in schools in order to raise awareness of inclusive education. The process of closing special schools, most of which had boarding facilities, and moving the pupils to mainstream schools was already under way, while three new centres were scheduled to open in 2017. In harmony with the new definition of special educational needs contained in the Act, the Government and UNICEF had developed a new methodology based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, which enabled the authorities to reclassify children’s needs and design individual curricula. Pupils that were moved from special schools were assessed, teaching assistants were recruited and financing was provided so that schools could adapt to the students’ needs. The Ministry of Education and Science had encountered difficulties in recruiting appropriately qualified specialists, psychologists, social workers and teachers in the regions and aimed to address the shortage by developing new training programmes and introducing new modules in teacher training courses, including at Armenia State Pedagogical University. That university also trained specialists in sign language, which was taught to all children who were hard of hearing.

Although 250 schools had been recognized as inclusive, they did not yet provide full physical access. In 2016, the Government, with the support of the Asian Development Bank, had embarked on a programme for the sustainable construction of schools that complied with universal design criteria. International expertise on accessibility for persons with special needs was drawn upon in all school construction and renovation projects. The Government had also signed an agreement with USAID under which grants would be provided for the repair or adaptation of old schools and educational establishments.

Ms. Hakobyan (Armenia) said that the Comprehensive Programme on the Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities included 24 articles on accessibility. The Construction Code stipulated that all new buildings had to meet the requirements of universal design, while non-compliant buildings had to be adapted in keeping with the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The draft strategy on equal rights and opportunities for women and men for the period 2017-2021 outlined measures to benefit women with disabilities, including making employers aware of such women’s rights and combating the stereotype that they were unable to work. Other measures included the retraining of health-care specialists, in particular those working on reproductive health issues, and a study to monitor violence against women with disabilities, including domestic violence, and to explore the measures needed to combat it.

Mr. Kocharyan (Armenia) said that, in the past, mechanisms for the participation of organizations of persons with disabilities in decision-making and legislative processes had not always been effective, which had led to dissatisfaction with the consulting arrangements. The Government had recently adopted measures to address the issue, such as offering representatives of civil society the opportunity to participate in the work of ministries and creating an online forum for the discussion of draft legislation and government decisions, with a view to improving transparency and giving stakeholders an early opportunity to provide input on the regulation of certain issues. Many matters relating to the rights of persons with disabilities were given prominence in other instruments, such as the National Human Rights Action Plan 2017-2019, which devoted considerable attention to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities and which was expected to be adopted in the near future.

Concerning the accessibility situation in Yerevan, visitors to the city would be able to witness first-hand the progress achieved, although many problems remained unresolved. In recent years, the Construction Code had been amended in such a way that the accessibility of all new buildings was a prerequisite for obtaining construction permits and for opening to the public. Further outstanding issues related to public transport, which was an area requiring more consistent policy implementation. In that connection, the Government was planning a new law on State procurement in order to give itself better tools to influence operators and service providers and ensure that they met the needs of citizens with disabilities.

Articles 11-20

Mr. Basharu said that he wished to know what measures had been put in place within the Crisis Management Centre of the Ministry of Emergency Situations to accommodate the requirements of persons with disabilities and provide employment opportunities. He wondered whether the State had any emergency plans that took account of the needs of persons with disabilities, especially those with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities and sensory impairments.

In view of the statement that 37 out of 48 court buildings had been made accessible to persons with disabilities, the delegation should indicate what measures had been taken to ensure access to all judicial establishments, including courts, prisons, police stations and other places of detention. He would also appreciate information on how judicial personnel were trained to understand the needs of persons with disabilities, particularly in relation to the provision of information in accessible formats such as Braille, sign language and easy-to-read.

He asked what measures were taken to protect the rights of persons with disabilities who had been detained in penitentiary institutions or otherwise restricted in the exercise of their liberty. Lastly, in view of article 11 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, which stipulated that “a citizen may not be a donor if he or she is recognized as a person with disabilities, in accordance with the established procedure”, he asked what procedures would preclude a person with disability from freely consenting to be a donor on an equal basis with others.

Mr. Tatić, presenting follow-up questions to the delegation’s responses on articles 1 to 10, said that he would be grateful for further information on the separate anti-discrimination law, such as how far the drafting had progressed and whether the draft contained provisions on reasonable accommodation and multiple discrimination. He would also like to know whether the action plan for the implementation of the Comprehensive Programme on the Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities included any specific budget lines for the removal of accessibility barriers.

In relation to article 19, on independent living and inclusion in the community, he was interested to know whether persons in need of 24-hour assistance had the opportunity to hire a professional personal assistant so that they did not have to rely on volunteers or family members in the performance of their daily activities.

Mr. Martin said that he wished to know what checks were carried out on foster families and other persons working with children with disabilities to ensure that the children were protected from abuse. He also wished to learn how the Government planned to implement article 12 of the Convention on equal recognition before the law, in line with the Committee’s general comment No. 1. Did Armenia provide training for government and judicial officials, as well as parents and support workers, in supported decision-making?

Considering that all citizens had the right to be included on an equal basis and that segregation was never the answer, the delegation should explain how the State party was making article 19 of the Convention a reality for all persons with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, so that they could choose where and with whom they lived and be assisted by the right services, aids, technologies and communication devices. How much funding was set aside to provide community services for people with intellectual disabilities?

Mr. Ishikawa, noting that major earthquakes occasionally struck Armenia, said that he wished to know what measures the Government had taken to implement the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in an accessible and disability-inclusive manner.

Mr. Parra Dussan said that the Committee would be grateful for information on action to facilitate the mobility of persons with disabilities by providing mobility aids, guide dogs for blind persons and other services.

Mr. Buntan said that he too would like to know whether the State party had prepared a comprehensive disaster reduction plan in accordance with the Sendai Framework and whether it had signed or planned to sign the Charter on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action, which would complement existing plans to deal with disasters and humanitarian crises. Furthermore, he wondered whether persons with disabilities were allowed to perform functions in the justice system by serving as lawyers, judges and prosecutors, and whether they received any incentives to enter those professions. Lastly, he wished to know whether persons living under guardianship or with restricted legal capacity were considered fit to stand trial and, if so, what measures were in place to ensure that they received a fair trial.

Mr. Langvad said that the response to his earlier question concerning organizations of persons with disabilities had only mentioned their involvement in providing services, whereas he had wished to ascertain whether they were empowered to participate in the political process and to guide the authorities in dealing with disability matters.

Concerning article 19, he wished to learn what guarantees and rights were available to enable persons with disabilities to live independently in the community, and how it was ensured that they had access to the necessary support services both at home and when participating in social and leisure activities. He would be particularly grateful for examples of the assistance provided to persons with different types and levels of disability.

Mr. Kabue, noting that the report stated that in an emergency the Crisis Management Centre would identify the location of persons with disabilities and arrange for their safety, said that further explanation should be provided of how such locations were identified and whether persons with disabilities were informed of how to be identified and located in a crisis situation. Considering the information that, from 1 January 2013, persons with disabilities would be provided with legal assistance in the event that their rights were violated, he wished to know whether that was indeed the case, how that assistance was offered and how persons with disabilities were made aware that it was available.

Mr. Pyaneandee said that information should be provided about the budget allocations for the bill on the protection of the rights and social inclusion of persons with disabilities and the action plan of the Comprehensive Programme on the Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, respectively, and the budgetary resources allocated to organizations of persons with disabilities to assist in the implementation of those two instruments.

In relation to access to justice, he wished to know how persons with disabilities vindicated their rights and what remedies were open to them, including mechanisms for access to justice during investigation, arrest and detention. Lastly, he wondered whether such mechanisms, including legal assistance or legal aid, were available for women subjected to sexual violence and abuse who were accommodated in institutions.

The Chair said that she had concluded that the State party’s guardianship system was not in line with article 12 of the Convention, in that it allowed for substitute decision-making and assumed that some persons with disabilities were legally incapable of taking decisions about their lives. Accordingly, the delegation should indicate whether there were any plans to change that law and bring it into line with the Convention, by introducing supported decision-making, for example. She was also interested to know whether the number of people under guardianship had increased or decreased since the State party’s ratification of the Convention and what kind of decisions had been taken for people deprived of or restricted in the exercise of their legal capacity.

The Committee would also welcome details of any action taken by the Government to overturn the decision that prevented persons with intellectual disabilities, sensory impairments and other health conditions from working as prosecutors, judges or investigators, as well as any plans to amend the regulations disqualifying persons with disabilities from joining the police and rescue services.

Noting the State party’s plans to conduct research on violence against women with disabilities, she asked why no disaggregated data were available on violence committed against persons with disabilities and whether there were any plans to make services for victims of violence accessible to persons with disabilities.

Mr. Ruškus said that the State party should describe any measures taken to repeal the laws providing for the deprivation of liberty of persons with disabilities without their informed consent, as well as any measures to ensure safeguards and legal assistance for persons with psychosocial disabilities. He was also concerned about persons with specific nutritional needs due to chronic diseases who were deprived of their liberty and wondered whether the State party planned to provide such persons with reasonable accommodation with regard to their eating arrangements.

The meeting rose at 5.40 p.m.