Government Implementation of the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Disabled Peoples' International - DPI

---

© Dimitris Michailakis 1997

General Policy

Table 1 (Question No. 1)
Number of DPI organizations reporting an officially recognized disability policy:

Disability policy expressed in:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Having an officially recognized policy	24	82,8
Not having an officially recognized policy	5	17,2
Law	21	72,4
Guidelines adopted by the Government	19	65,5
Guidelines adopted by a disability council	9	31,0
Policy adopted by political parties	8	27,6
Policy adopted by NGO's	12	41,4

Total 29, No answer 4

The majority of DPI organizations are reporting an officially recognized disability policy. The majority of DPI organizations are reporting that disability policy is expressed in law and in guidelines, adopted by the government. The replies from the NGO's generally exhibit the same pattern. There are no clear differences regarding the percentage of countries with an officially recognized disability policy. When compared with the responses from the governments, there is only one clear difference in the percentages reported, namely that DPI organizations report a considerably higher percentage regarding the policy adopted by NGO's.

Table 2 (Question No. 2)
The emphasis of disability policy

Emphasis in national policy	Number of NGO's indicating respective emphasis
	1	2	3	4	5
Prevention	6	3	9	2	-
Rehabilitation	8	10	2	-	1
Individual support	6	5	4	2	5
Accessibility measures	-	2	5	12	-
Anti-discrimination law	4	1	-	3	9

1 = very strong emphasis, 5 = very weak emphasis

According to DPI organizations, the strongest emphasis is on rehabilitation, while the weakest emphasis is on anti-discrimination law and accessibility measures. The pattern is the same as with the NGO's in general, and the governments. From the information available it can be concluded that, in the majority of the countries, the emphasis in disability policy still is on support to the individual, not on doing away with the obstacles in the environment.

Table 3 (Question No. 3)
Government action to convey the message of full participation

Conveying the message of full participation	Frequency	Valid Percent
DPI organizations reporting Gvt. action	14	45,2
DPI organizations reporting no Gvt. action	17	54,8

Total 31, No answer 2

There are 17 organizations out of 31 providing information on this issue, reporting that the governments have not done anything to initiate or support information campaigns conveying the message of full participation, since the adoption of the Rules. There are no great differences in percentages reported, when compared with the NGO's in general, but great differences compared with those reported by the governments. For instance, 81% of the governments report that, since the adoption of the Rules, the government has initiated and supported information campaigns conveying the message of full participation. Is it possible that the NGO's could have missed the information campaigns? Could they have any interest in giving a poorer account of the governments' activities?

Legislation

Table 4 (Question No. 4)
Types of legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities

Types of legislation	Frequency	Valid Percent
Special legislation	4	12,1
General legislation	13	39,4
Special and general legislation	16	48,5

Total 33, No answer 0

As Table 4 shows, the most common type of legislation is a combination of special legislation and general legislation, followed by general legislation, applicable to all citizens. Special legislation, specifically referring to disabled persons' rights, has not proved to be successful, although being nearest to the intentions of the Standard Rules. Though the pattern is the same compared with the NGO's in general, there is a clear difference regarding special legislation. The valid percentage for the NGO's in general is 23,6%, but 12,1% for DPI's. When compared with the responses from the governments, the DPI organizations report a higher percentage regarding general legislation and lower percentages regarding countries with a combination of special and general legislation. Consequently, DPI organizations are reporting more countries with a weak legal base, than the governments do.

Table 5 (Question No. 5)
Mechanisms to protect citizenship rights

Judicial/no-judicial mechanisms	Frequency	Valid Percent
Due process	21	72,4
Recourse procedure	4	13,8
Ombudsman	16	55,2
Governmental body (administrative)	14	48,3
Expert bodies	5	17,2
Arbitration/conciliation body	3	10,3

Total 29, No answer 4

As Table 5 shows, the majority of DPI organizations are reporting that mechanisms have been adopted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The most frequent judicial mechanism adopted is legal remedy through the courts, while the most frequent non-judicial mechanism is a governmental body (administrative). It is interesting to note that 16 countries out of 29 providing information on this issue, have an Ombudsman for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. There is a clear difference as regards the percentage of countries reporting that they have an ombudsman. The percentage reported from the NGO's in general is 36%, while the percentages reported by the governments regarding this issue is 28%. Otherwise, there are no clear differences between the governments and the DPI organizations.


Table 6 (Question 6)
Civil and political rights of persons with disabilities

DPI organizations reporting that general legislation does not apply with respect to:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Education	3	11,5
Employment	6	23,1
The right to marriage	9	34,6
The right to parenthood/family	10	38,5
Political rights	9	34,6
Access to court-of-law	8	30,8
Right to privacy	9	34,6
Property rights	10	38,5

Total 26, No answer 7

As Table 6 shows, a considerable number of DPI organizations report that, in almost 40% of the countries, general legislation does not apply to persons with disabilities with respect to the greater part of civil and political rights, except the right to education. The general legislation in almost all countries is applicable with respect to the right of education. It is also interesting to note that general legislation, in almost 80% of the countries applies with respect to the right of employment. The pattern is similar with the NGO's in general, with minor differences in the percentages reported. There are, however, clear differences when compared with the percentage reported by the governments. Again, we are confronted with one pessimistic and one more optimistic view.

Table 7 (Question No. 7)
Economic and social rights of persons with disabilities

DPI organizations reporting that the following benefits are not guaranteed by law:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Health/medical care	8	26,7
Rehabilitation	10	33,3
Financial security	14	46,7
Employment	17	56,7
Independent living	18	60,0
Participation in decisions affecting themselves	14	46,7

Total 30, No answer 3

According to DPI organizations, the rights less often guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities, are: independent living, employment, participation in decisions affecting themselves and the right to financial security. The right, most often guaranteed by law, is the right to health and medical care, though in almost 25% of the countries this is not the case. Regarding the right to employment, and comparíng with question no. 6, you may infer that general legislation is not a sufficient guarantee for disabled persons' employment. Though, in ca 80% of the countries, there are no legal hindrances for disabled persons with regard to the right to employment, only in 50% of the countries this right is guaranteed by law. There are no clear differences compared with the NGO's in general, except regarding the right to participation in decisions affecting themselves. The percentage reported by the NGO's in general is 60%, while DPI report only 46.7%. DPI organizations report a considerably higher percentage of economic and social rights not guaranteed by law than those reported by governments in all of the above listed benefits, except regarding the benefit of right to participation in decisions affecting themselves.

Table 8 (Question No. 8)
New legislation concerning disability since the adoption of the Rules

Legislation on disability	Frequency	Valid Percent
DPI reporting enactment of new legislation	13	41,9
DPI reporting no enactment of new legislation	18	58,1

Total 31, No answer 2

As Table 8 shows, the majority of DPI organizations are reporting that no new legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules. In 42% of the countries, however, enactment of new legislation is reported. There are no clear differences compared with the percentages reported by the NGO's in general, neither with those reported by the governments.

---

Contents of the DPI Report